Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Information seeking behaviors and attitude to information among educational practitioners Matheson, Helen Joyce Castleden 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A2 M38.pdf [ 7.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078358.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078358-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078358-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078358-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078358-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078358-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078358-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078358-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078358.ris

Full Text

INFORMATION  SEEKING BEHAVIORS  AND  AMONG EDUCATIONAL  ATTITUDE TO  INFORMATION  PRACTITIONERS  by HELEN JOYCE CASTLEDEN  MATHESON  B. A., U n i v e r s i t y o f Saskatchewan., 1949 M.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1973  SUBMITTED  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCTOR OF  THE DEGREE  OF  EDUCATION  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Education, Department of Reading)  We a c c e p t to  this  dissertation  the required  as conforming  standard  Thesis  UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA February, (D  1979.  Helen Joyce Matheson,  1979  Supervisor  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  in p a r t i a l  fulfilment of  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h the I  Library shall  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by h i s of  this  written  make  it  t h a t permission  It  for financial  is understood that gain shall  permission.  University of B r i t i s h  2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  6  I agree  reference and  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  Depa rtment The  for  Columbia,  this  for  that  study. thesis  purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or  representatives. thesis  freely available  the requirements  Columbia  not  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  be allowed without my  ABSTRACT This  study  investigates  the  psychological characteristics purposes  for  seeking  characteristics problems  information. developed was  to  analyzed  •hierarchy* A  to  support  a  determine the  were  was  but  differ  geographic  The  not  which  pilot  teachers,  schools  attitude and  both  and  it  and  the  educational scale,  information, reflected  a  tested, revised  and  administrators  and  district  Columbia.  had  information  significantly from r e g i o n  was  analyzed  strong  offices  Responses  of from  c o r r e l a t i o n s with  dissemination.  related to  Sense  of  p o s i t i o n or a t t i t u d e ,  to r e g i o n , although  hierarchy  designed  to  to determine  not  was  was  not  confirmed.  measure  whether a  growth o f a t t i t u d e c o u l d  f i v e - l e v e l taxonomy  level  the  on  a  simple  d i s t a n c e factor..  d e v e l o p m e n t and a  of  of B r i t i s h  fifteen-item scale  information  use,  information to  their  analyzed*  education,  isolation  the  province  using  response  to  designed,  sample in  and  extent  t o them,  or to  they  and  development.  was  random  educators  did  seeking  affective  i n the  experience,  in  sources  important  measure u s e r s *  g r o w t h and  Position  are  professional  of i n f o r m a t i o n ;  the  attitude  personnel  education  users  an  questionnaire  mailed  1,037  addition,  to of  that  encounter  In  of the  information,  of s o u r c e s  they  personal,  confirmed,  be  attitude 'hierarchy'  confirmed.  to of  Although  a less concise,  three-  Fifteen rated  possible  as to t h e i r  used  as a b a s i s  four  classes.  importance  f o r grouping In  was  Thirteen  on  freguency  of  use.  different  position  seeking  the nine they  this  A  The  results  groups  do  of use  showed  analyses different  that  o r no  difference  d e g r e e and  those  who  only  source,  illuminated  contrasts)  significant  and  and  complex  s o u r c e s when  they  use  of  nearly  study,  have no  there  university  a b a c h e l o r ' s degree;  and  on  that  did freguency but  the  the t o t a l score.on the  analyses  bivariate position  Experience,  significance.  the  For  of  use  rate  of  attitude  significantly  to  related  of sources.  regression  for  who  experience;  directly  were s i g n i f i c a n t  sources.  more t h a n  of  were b o t h  these  and  university  "educational journals",  o f use  dissemination  of  have no  reported  Multiple  all  between t h o s e  with i n c r e a s e d years  to frequency  into  indicate  while the  little  scale  categories  analysis;  is  information  were  significant  s o u r c e s i n c r e a s e s with post-graduate  dissemination  These r a t i n g s  position  all  change  were  o f e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n were r a t e d  seek i n f o r m a t i o n ; I t a l s o  one  information  were a n a l y z e d t o i d e n t i f y  Purposes.  r e v e a l e d by  sources  for  to respondents.  addition  e f f e c t s of P o s i t i o n relationship  purposes  of  in explaining  relatively  extended  relationships:  (measured  education  sources  and  using  Attitude,  three  planned  the variance of isolation  f e w e r s o u r c e s , and  and  nearly  were.  at a lower  each level  iv. Eleven  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  respondents according considered of the  important  scale).  "provides "is  highly  "finding  2.5,  the  idiosyncratic, style  of  The  final  item  question  reported  on  as  1)  systems  were  district  libraries,  and  information  a  The  frequencies,  most commonly c i t e d  use  read  the  the  was  not  the  for  system,  but  to  27  not  3)  personnel  i n the  5)  "is  o f use  school  an  factor  in  problems  sources  or  to  was  were  an of  open-ended an  "ideal"  tabulated  were d e v e l o p e d . "ideal"  and The  information  a n d / o r E R I C , 2)  improved  libraries,  time  courses  district.  a  suggests  that of  had  category.  statement  of  cause.  barriers to  major  position  retrieval  improved  information,  a  categories  characteristics  they  problems as  responses  and  were  information  scale* This  questionnaire  673  and  and  information"  indicating  personal  computer  objective"  difficulty  r e l a t e d to the l e v e l  asking  information  most of  of problems,  users,  inexpensive"  Attitude to  f o r or  m i d p o i n t on  see  midpoint  characteristics.  t o the  Position  variance  personal  seek  the  information*  explaining  of  the  by  were  most i m p o r t a n t  and  I need".  time to look  respondents d i d not  getting  are  than  " i s f r e e or  reliable  information  were r a t e d  characteristics  involving others";  p r o b l e m s were r a t e d as  one,  All  sources  ( a l l means >2.5,  were  r e l a t e d t o importance  mean g r e a t e r that  important  without  t o have t h e  Ten Only  a l l groups  authoritative, accurate,  likely was  access  t o importance. by  Least  information  and  4)  w o r k s h o p s , and  to 6)  V.  Table List I.  Of C o n t e n t s  of Tables  INTRODUCTION AND RELATED Introduction Information Information Attitude to  vi  OF THE PROBLEM RESEARCH . ....  i  1 1 Management . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . l \ . . . . . . . . . . 2 Users i n Education ...... ............. i . 5 Information ...............10  Summary  . . . . . i . . . ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . ^.... i.. ..11  II.  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM i ; . . . i . . 13 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e Study i i . .,1.. 14 D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms ............................15 Overview 15  III.  PROCEDURES ^..J.................................... M Development o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 17 Sampling , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . i i.,20 D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e F i n a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 S t a t i s t i c a l Methodology . i 3 0  IV.  RESULTS ....................,.».......,,i.;.33 D e s c r i p t i o n of the User i....i..i.i..33 I n f o r m a t i o n S e e k i n g B e h a v i o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Your " i d e a l " System i . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Summary , . .,*,i 74  V, SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ., 77 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .,-.....................77 L i m i t a t i o n s . . i . . .;.................................79 Conclusions ....81 Recommendations f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; ; . . . 94 VI. VII. VIII.  REFERENCE NOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY  . .\i i  . . . . ...  ,i . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 . . . .... ...  99  APPENDICES i . ... . i . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . L ... 107 A. P i l o t Study Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . i . i . 107 B. F i n a l S t u d y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 C. K r a t h w o h l S t a g e D e f i n i t i o n s and I t e m s ' ; . . . . . . . . . . 135 D. L e t t e r t o R e s p o n d e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 E. L e t t e r t o S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s .......................140 F. P o s t c a r d Reminder 142 G. C o r r e l a t i o n s Between a n d Among U s e r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and S o u r c e s 144 H. M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e s for A l l Sources ..,,,.,,,,..,..,.147 I . Form J 155  vi,. L i s t - Of Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table  Tables  1 S a m p l i n g Frame and R e t u r n s 23 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Respondents over Professional Positions ,3U 3 Results of Cluster Analysis ofP o s i t i o n s i . . . . ; 3 5 4 Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : A t t i t u d e a s a F u n c t i o n of P o s i t i o n C l u s t e r ................ 36 5 Cross-tabulation of Experience • . i' and P o s i t i o n .. i............... .37 6 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of I s o l a t i o n and P o s i t i o n 38 7 S e n s e o f I s o l a t i o n f o r Each o f Twelve E d u c a t i o n a l R e g i o n s ........................ 39 8 Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : Sense o f I s o l a t i o n as a F u n c t i o n o f R e g i o n ............. 40 9 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Education and P o s i t i o n . . „ * , , , , .......... 42 Cl0 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f D i s s e m i n a t i o n • • • • • > < < and P o s i t i o n .................. U3 ill R e s u l t s o f Guttman A n a l y s i s o f A t t i t u d e i t e m s ...,46 12 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f P o s i t i o n and A t t i t u d e 46 13 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f E x p e r i e n c e and A t t i t u d e ... ... 48 14 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f I s o l a t i o n • and A t t i t u d e ........ .,; , ; ...49 15 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f E d u c a t i o n and A t t i t u d e . . . . j 50 16 C r o s s t a b u l a t i o n o f D i s s e m i n a t i o n and A t t i t u d e . , ; . . . . . u ; . . . . . 51 17 P u r p o s e s : Means and Rank O r d e r ................... 52 18 E f f e c t s o f P o s i t i o n on P u r p o s e s 1....... i i . 53 19 S o u r c e s : Means and Rank O r d e r s .54 20 E f f e c t s o f P o s i t i o n on S o u r c e s ................... 56 21 E f f e c t s o f E d u c a t i o n on S o u r c e s ..................58 22 E f f e c t s o f D i s s e m i n a t i o n on S o u r c e s .,.,.'.'...., ,: . i 60 23 E f f e c t s o f A t t i t u d e on S o u r c e s , ...,.,...,..,,.61 24 M u l t i p l e Regression'Summary T a b l e .... , , i . . . . . i ... .64 25 R o t a t e d F a c t o r L o a d i n g s o f S o u r c e s . . . . , i . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 26 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Means and Rank O r d e r s ..,,,,,,,.,68 27 E f f e c t s o f A t t i t u d e oh C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . . . . . . . i . 7 0 28 P r o b l e m s : Means'and Rank O r d e r . . „ . . ; . . . . . . . i 7 1 . 29 R e s p o n s e s t o Your " i d e a l " System ................. 73 1  ?  1  Figure Figure  1.  B r i t i s h Columbia School D i s t r i c t s by R e g i o n s ..................... .  41  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  There task*  a r e many who were e s s e n t i a l  of t h i s  My t h a n k s go:  To  my p a r e n t s  made i t a  To  Dr.  To  my  support,  who s u p p l i e d  E, G. Summers who i n t r o d u c e d  science  and who g u i d e d  dissertation  example  that  and a s p e c i a l  me t o b i g , l i t t l e  and  much o f t h e v e n t u r e ;  committee  for  their  thanks t o Dr. E. Conry  measure and who c a r e f u l l y  stages  t h e genes and t h e  posibility;  information  to  t o the completion  interest  who t a u g h t  oversaw t h e d e s i g n  and  and me  the  how  final  of the study;  To  a l l the  faculty  and g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s  who s h a r e d  and  cared;  And,  most o f a l l , t o my h u s b a n d Don, and o u r s i x  who n o t o n l y  thought  that I could,  but b e l i e v e d  that I  children, should.  1  CHAPTER  I  INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM AND RELATED RESEARCH Introduction The well  documented  Kochen, that  growth o f s c i e n t i f i c  (Cuadra,  1966;  decade  will  beginning  estimated  roughly  that  during  every  the world  o f Canada  (Shera,  This  (1966)  than  tremendous  suggested  been  t o suppose during  the  produced  from  t i m e " (p. 37)..  It  pages o f  text  were  was  published  1 9 6 6 ) . I n 1969 t h e S c i e n c e  Council  there has been an annual literature of 7 percent-- a each h a l f c e n t u r y . T h i s year, some 35,000 j o u r n a l s a r e b e i n g 60 languages (Special Study  growth  that  an e x p l o s i o n "  the  community  1972;  seconds o f t h e twenty-four  in  published  explosion".  "what  is  happening  c o m m u n i c a t i o n i s more c l o s e l y  of the i n c r e a s e While  that having  sixty  t o a s an " i n f o r m a t i o n  technical  Weisman,  reported:  S i n c e t h e 17th c e n t u r y , growth in scientific g r o w t h f a c t o r o f 10 f o r 3,000,000 articles in p u b l i s h e d i n more t h a n No. 8, p. 3 ) .  referred  been  published  i t s present  h o u r day, more t h a n two t h o u s a n d throughout  1967;  has  " I t i s reasonable  literature  equal  of science to  literature  Borko,  1 9 6 9 ) . I n 1963 P r i c e w r o t e ,  t h e volume o f s c i e n t i f i c  next the  exponential  conducting  However,  often  Licklider  in scientific  analagous  to  a  and  flood  ( p . 1 0 4 4 ) . Whatever i t was named, t h e e f f e c t s  in print  growth  m a t e r i a l s was  information  reflected research  a and  were  strong  and  reporting  not  a l l positive.  active  scientific  i t s findings, i t  2  also  posed  Licklider work  throuqh  later,  " I t i s our  period  possible to  "The  field  own  impossible"(p.1045).  p r e d i c t i o n was  literature  has  now  confirmed  to l i v e  and  mastery of a  field  Almost  years  by  ten  B o r k o and  expanded t o s u c h an  difficulty  field.  i n keepinq  Bernier  extent  that  with  his  current  with  up  of i n t e r e s t " (p.4).  "every  person" i s havinq  scientific  production* evaluated  field,  manaqement,  and  then  and  to  this  f i n d i n g s , a new  information, Information  the  methods  of  must  information be  examined,  improved.  response  scientific  t r o u b l e keepinq  dissemination  Information In  unique experience  i n which i n d i v i d u a l  person i s e x p e r i e n c i n q  When his  the  Licklider's  (1975): every  problem of a s s i m i l a t i o n f o r t h o s e : i n the  (1966) s a i d ,  t u r n s from  own  the  or  as  Science  it  was  Manaqement  exponential science  was  became  known,  defined  by  qrowth  of  developed, the  Borko  reported science  Information (1968)  of  Science.  as  An i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y science that investigates the properties and behaviors of i n f o r m a t i o n , the f o r c e s t h a t g o v e r n t h e f l o w and use o f i n f o r m a t i o n , and the technigues, b o t h manual and m e c h a n i c a l , of p r o c e s s i n g information for optimal storage, retrieval, and dissemination (p.5), In  1966  the  first  Annual Beview o f I n f o r m a t i o n  Technology  (ABIST)  was  published.  information  science  was  still  science machine  included  an  At  t h a t time the  undefined.  Views  elaboration of t r a d i t i o n a l  manipulation  of  linguistic  Science  or numeric  of  library data,  field the  and of new  practice, processing  3  or a n a l y z i n g  scientific  communication.  The  annual  intercommunication accelerate  As  of  enquiry  and  the  the  a means o f  was  into  processing  became  the  vast  1962;  L i p e t z , 1966;  1967;  Science  Council  of  Canada, R e p o r t  1971;  Weinberg,  problems  practitioners sciences.  in  the  In s p i t e  of  between i n f o r m a t i o n One and  example  development  (EEIC)  for  located,  the  on  Paisley noted  that  proficient  #6,  S  1969;  aware  and  of  Saracevic,  of  indexes,  solve  natural  the  or  still  social a  gap  Center  documents were entered  of ERIC, r e c o g n i z i n g  the  documents,  directed  or  conceptualization  Relevant  related  the  use.  Resources Information  education.  designers  merely  technicians  information was  Liston,  that  was  at  information  Murdock  d e s c r i p t o r s , a b s t r a c t e d and  t o p r o d u c e new  information  but  and  of  there,  phenomenon  of  collections  bibliographies,  fields  Educational  field  computer system,. The  personnel  this  field  scientists,  efforts,  production  by  became  the  their  of  unified  making i t a v a i l a b l e d i d n o t  various  of the  labelled  synthesis,  they  of  to  quantities of  (Bourne,  information  and  more  produced  m a t e r i a l and  encourage  factions a  beinq  categorizing  to  1966).  scientists  1971),  interpersonal  designed  various  parts  (Cuadra,  information  collecting  review  between  fusion  scientific  documents, and  the  into need  a for  annotated  clearinghouse  documents t h a t would b r i n g  together  the  specific topics.  (1971) "even  commended t h e knowledge  of  ERIC s y s t e m ERIC's  for i t s efforts,  existence  declines  4  abruptly  as  professors  to 'localite'  In  the  individual in  the  we  natural  from  'cosmopolite  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and  sciences  concern  who needs t h e i n f o r m a t i o n number  characteristics first  move  of  studies  and b e h a v i o r  f o r the  were  (Herner, (1966)  and  teachers"(p.403). user,  f o r h i s work, was  that  volume o f ABIST, M e n z e l  researchers  8  concerned  the  expressed with  user  1954; M e n z e l , 1 9 6 0 ) . I n t h e said.  The way i n which s c i e n t i s t s and e n g i n e e r s make use o f the information services at t h e i r d i s p o s a l , the demands t h e y p u t t o them, t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n a c h i e v e d by their efforts, and t h e r e s u l t a n t i m p a c t on their further work a r e among t h e i t e m s o f knowledge which a r e n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e wise planning of information s y s t e m s and p o l i c y (p*41). He as  noted  that  valuable sources Two y e a r s  literature" evidence  "user  s t u d i e s " were j u s t  of facts  later,  information  "mutual  n e e d s and u s e s  education  t o emerge  activities*  P a i s l e y (1968) c o u l d  of information of  about user  beginning  and  r e p o r t "a s i g n i f i c a n t (p,* 1) .  He  recognized  accommodation"  s c i e n c e and b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e  in  between  developing  this  literature*  Martyn studies. studies:  (1974) p r o v i d e d  He  noted  three  (1) t o d e s i g n  investigate  and  (3)  different  stages  to  new  flow discover  of research  o f t h e development o f user  trends  or r e - t a i l o r  information  technology  a history  in  i n the purposes o f user  information  systems,  areas  than  the  other  role  activities.  of  (2)  to  s c i e n c e and  information  at  5  4s  interest  studies  and  information Borko, 1970;  discussed  users  1962;  recognized  needs  their  to  of  the  researchers  identified naturally need  1970;  tend  suggested  position, that there  established  where  Users  Bernal,  1960;  1966; Wood, 1969,  and  person  i t could  who  needed  be. found  was  of education.  i n Education  users  of  habits,  (Chorness,  educational have  information,  been i n v e s t i g a t e d by & Heald,  1968, 1969;  Summers, 1972, 1 9 7 4 ) . H a v e l o c k  (1967, 1969)  to find  i t : When t h e s e  the  science f i e l d  eight separate  formalized  1954;  & Paisley,  connecting  d i s s e m i n a t o r s and  Rittenhouse,  (Herner,  Parker  sources  i n the social  characteristics  several  past  1971; K u g e l , 1 9 7 4 ) *  Information The  and b o o k s r e v i e w e d  new and b e t t e r methods o f i n v e s t i g a t i n g  1963;  importance  information  grew, a r t i c l e s  and t h e i r  Rees,  Bernier, The  i n users  Rittenhouse  classes of " l i n k e r s " ,  i n f o r m a t i o n and l i n k  linkers their should  organization  be so  a  who  i t t o t h e people  act individually  effectiveness  individuals  without  support o r  i s restricted.  recognized  role  that a systematized  who  Havelock  within  link  an  c o u l d be  developed.  In t h e  United  Information undertaken this  Requirements (Line,  in  science  in  of  1967,  Social  was  concerned  education; practitioners  The  an  Investigation  Scientists  1969, 1971; B r i t t a i n ,  investiqation  practitioners social  Kingdom  1970). with  teachers  shortage  of  One  (INFROSS) was section  researchers shared time  into  with and  of and  other lack of  6  awareness o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o o l s : other  fields,  however*  In c o n t r a s t to p r a c t i t i o n e r s  the r e s e a r c h e r s f o u n d  that  in  teachers,  where they were not plain apathetic showed some suspicion, even hostility, towards educational research; they saw the need to keep up w i t h t h e s u b j e c t s they taught* not with educational theory, r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e , E d u c a t i o n was t o them s o m e t h i n g one did, not something one found out about ( L i n e , 1971, p,;429). Line  r e p o r t e d t h a t , from t h e  responses,  the g r e a t e s t d i f f i c u l t y concerns research i n f o r m a t i o n * I t i s o f l i t t l e use t o c o n v e y 'raw' research to the practitioners in the form of j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s and r e s e a r c h p a p e r s ; what t h e y need i s c a r e f u l l y prepared and temptingly presented packages, s u m m a r i z i n g and evaluating research findings that are sufficiently established for their practical i m p l i c a t i o n s t o be c l e a r * . . . S i n c e p r a c t i t i o n e r s have an even stronger preference for informal communication than researchers,..thought should also be given to d e v e l o p i n g c h a n n e l s o f i n f o r m a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , whether these be contacts with l o c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s of h i g h e r education, or access to a central or regional i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t r e (p,429) .*  Line  strongly  intermediaries, information  existing  state who  while  (1972)  Information  separate  had  to  s y s t e m s had  Paisley for  noting  tools  effectiveness,  recommended  the.  .that, previous make  them  been v e r y  reported  Needs i n  on  of  personal  attempts  to  simplify  usable  attempts t o educate not  use:  had  lessened  practitioners  successful  (p.430),  "Developing  a Sensing  Education".  This  study  methods o f i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d s a s s e s s m e n t :  survey  of i n f o r m a t i o n needs;  requested  information  from  (2) an  to  (1) of  a  use  Network  tested  a follow-up EPIC  their  five  thirteen educators  clearinghouse  or  7  l o c a l i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t e r ; (3) an " i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t s " in  which  expert personnel attempted  needs of t h e i r c l i e n t s ;  study  to project the i n f o r m a t i o n  (4) a t o l l - f r e e  " h o t l i n e " study i n  which  e d u c a t o r s were i n v i t e d t o phone f o r needed i n f o r m a t i o n ; and an  educational  serials  the C u r r e n t Index  study i n which  t h e t o p i c s coming i n t o  to J o u r n a l s i n Education  (CUE)  across f o u r time p e r i o d s . This study  focussed  which  methods  users  demanded  and  p r e f e r r e d , but d i d n o t information;  As  a  on  the  investigate  result  of  user  of  with  method among a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and  and  interest  supervisors; A l l  i n "News and  needs  data  points  out  that  needs.  To  r e s u l t i n p o l i c y changes. to  business  most  groups  but  (Paisley,  information  choices popular  showed  He  very  needs  d a t a do  compared  i n chanqe*  measurement o f i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d s becomes more  little  1972);  He  policy  continued:  specific  new with  delivery  systems w i l l  be r e q u i r e d t o match need s p e c i f i c i t y  response  specificity"  (1972,p.  Four  years  later.  Hood  not  information  i n d i c a t o r s , as p r e r e q u i s i t e t o  change, but not a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e s u l t i n q "As  the  p r o f e s s i o n a l c u r r e n t awareness"  i n t e r e s t i n " O r i g i n a l research papers" Paisley  seeking  endorsed  user  was  they  of r e s e a r c h " the p r e f e r r e d  "Case s t u d i e s , d e s c r i p t i o n s o f p r a c t i c e " ,  immediately  in  the s t u d y , P a i s l e y  "Summaries  content  delivery  behavior  " P r a c t i c a l , how-to g u i d a n c e "  a l l groups,  moderate  the  t h e method o f d e l i v e r y o f i n f o r m a t i o n , f i v e  were p r e s e n t e d * over  were' t a b u l a t e d on  s u r v e y a s t h e s i n g l e b e s t method o f i d e n t i f y i n g investigate  (5)  108). and  B l a c k w e l l (1976), at the  Far  8  West  Laboratory  published  for  their  Educational  Research  and  Development,  "Educational  Information  Market Study".  market a n a l y s i s o f e d u c a t i o n a l  information  service  conceived for  as  "an  developing  antecedent  to determining  an i n f o r m a t i o n  system  needs  of  education  users"  hoped  to  discover  homogeneous  information  users;  established designing  there or  An  the  (location, person  at  redesigning  relationships organization),  (age,  sex),  Ose between  ( t y p e , t a s k ) , and  results  of  differences patterns  of  Hood  information  "  use  are  that  design  1-19).  which context  activities),  preferred. many and  "the  systems  n e e d s and  services in  of  The  significant that  the  determinants.  segmented by  to  for  (perception  and/or  can  and  be  ( g i v e t o , come to) ,  "this information  to the  ( V o l I I , p,  work  exchange  concluded  can  developed  resources  used  team  basis  variables:  (type,  have m u l t i p l e  Blackwell  that  seven  the  educational  and  sub-audiences,  market i s q u i t e e a s i l y  services targeted audiences  educational  to  ( V o l I , p. 1-3) .  was  i n d i c a t e d that there  information  p. 1 - 1 9 ) , and  existing  study  among  and  information II,  the  sources  products users"  position  i s o l a t i o n ) ; socioraetric information  of  beginning  Model  information  purposes  a  c l a s s e s of  Information  specifications  meaningful patterns  least  was  The:research  sub-groups  information  different  Education  posited  be  needs  responsive  ( V o l I , p. I I - 1 ) .  "If significant,  would  terms of needs o f  more  the  This  be  preferences  educational  work r o l e s " used t o new of  (Vol  improve  products various  and sub-  9  Investigating  the  environment of users factors, sources  singly  i s  or  in  combination,  another  influence the sources  ability  way t o c l a s s i f y "...should  i n t o which  influence;the  attitudes  to  of  King  Martyn  our  and b e h a v i o r "  Hood and B l a c k w e l l Educational  of  these  information  the  user  and Palmour  that (1974)  might  also  suggest  that  characteristics,  t o l e a r n and c h a n g e " might be an i n f o r m a t i v e  users;  add  professional  practitioners.  facet  used;  the  " p s y c h o l o g i c a l make-up, s u c h as p e r s o n a l i t y  attitudes,  the  and  c a n g i v e some i n s i g h t  used by e d u c a t i o n a l  There  the  demographics  new  studies  knowledge o r o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g  o f user  (p.  (1974)  suggested  5),  (1976), i n t h e i r  Information  that  summary  of  results  of  Market Study, s a i d :  There are d i s t i n c t p a t t e r n s o f i n f o r m a t i o n use t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e p e o p l e , and .-.,; p e o p l e who tend t o use similar p a t t e r n s a r e o n l y sometimes i n t h e same t y p e s o f j o b s o r p o s i t i o n s . T h u s , p a t t e r n s o f p u r p o s e s and sources may be as much p e r s o n a l s t y l e s a s t h e y a r e requirements or consequences of p a r t i c u l a r jobs or positions;...Although these findinqs of distinct p a t t e r n s o f i n f o r m a t i o n use t h a t a r e only partially related t o job type a r e e x t r e m e l y s p e c u l a t i v e a t t h i s p o i n t * t h e y a r e i n t e r e s t i n q enouqh t o w a r r a n t further i n v e s t i q a t i o n (Vol I , p. 1-5).  It styles" this  was  to  investigate  further  that the Attitude to Information  study.  I t i s hypothesized  have a s i g n i f i c a n t  effect  that  this scale  area  of  "personal  was d e v e l o p e d f o r  a t t i t u d e to information  on t h e c h o i c e  of sources  used.  will  10  Attitude to The complex for  measurement o f a t t i t u d e s i n any f i e l d task;  Social psychologists  many y e a r s .  definitions attitude and  Triandis  and  "feels"  measured  range  of  classification of  cognitive,  affective  a p e r s o n ' s own p e r c e p t i o n  of the  actions must  and h a b i t s be  o f the  included  component i s a  individual*  A l l  i f a t t i t u d e i s t o be  (1964)  of  from  an  and  h i s associates  attitude  the process  as  a  looked  slow, s u b t l e  of a c q u i r i n q a concept.  at  process After a  the quite long  c a r e f u l examination of " i n t e r e s t s , a t t i t u d e s , appreciations,  values  and  emotional  Taxonomy o f E d u c a t i o n a l taxonomy  offers  a  sets  or  Objectives:  biases",  they  the A f f e c t i v e  classification  d e v e l o p m e n t b a s e d on a t h o r o u g h and  attitudes  completely.  acquisition  and  and  component i s t h e e m o t i o n a l component, how a  components  Krathwohl  different  a  wide  a b o u t an i s s u e ; and t h e b e h a v i o r a l  measure o f t h e o v e r t these  the  offered  components:  i n t o the a t t i t u d e through  person  subtle  The c o g n i t i v e component i s made up o f t h e i d e a s  world; the a f f e c t i v e  of  three  and  i sa  have been s t u d y i n g  (1971) s y n t h e s i z e d  directions  which i n c l u d e d  behavioral;  built  Information  study  of  the  produced Domain.  stages  of the relevant  research: 1.0 R e c e i v i n g (attending) 1.1 Awareness 1.2 W i l l i n g n e s s t o r e c e i v e 1.3 C o n t r o l l e d o r s e l e c t e d a t t e n t i o n 2, 0 R e s p o n d i n g 2.1 A c q u i e s c e n c e i n r e s p o n d i n q 2.2 W i l l i n g n e s s t o r e s p o n d 2.3 S a t i s f a c t i o n i n r e s p o n d i n g  A  This  of a t t i t u d e literature  11  3.0  Valuing 3.1 A c c e p t a n c e o f a v a l u e 3.2 P r e f e r e n c e f o r a v a l u e 3.3 Commitment ( c o n v i c t i o n ) Organization 4.1 C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f an 4.2 O r g a n i z a t i o n of a v a l u e C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n by a v a l u e 5.1 G e n e r a l i z e d s e t 5.2 C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n .  4,10 5.0  idea system  T h e r e have been some a t t e m p t s t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e and affective 1976)  taxonomy  provides  a  in  education.  useful  H e a d i n g A t t i t u d e Measure designed  t o take and  attitude,;  Items o f t h e  feelings  and  an  measure  reflected  Included  for  (MBEAM) d e v e l o p e d  for  within  values.  along  developing  The  the  five  the i t e m s  were  Respondents  a five  u n l i k e me".  described  point  use  study  was  components  of  acguiring  an  of  specific of  Krathwohl's  being  "very  a t t i t u d e i t e m s seemed a p p r o p r i a t e : measure f o r t h i s  to  to these  o f K r a t h w o h l ' s taxonomy a s  a t t i t u d e to i n f o r m a t i o n  behavioral  references  reacted  s c a l e , as  Behavioral  the  stages  the  (Mikulecky,  Multi-stage  8  taxonomy*  "very  The  study  Krathwohl s developmental process  which  situations,  model.  recent  i n t o account both T r i a n d i s ' three  attitude  situations  A  use  for  ideas,  realistic  like  me"  or  a framework designing  study.  Summary The  recent  growth  development  of  a  investigate  and  control  of  information  concern  grew  ultimate  user*  for  new  in  science,  manage t h e  the  published  flow  sources problem  literature  Information and  use  became of  led  Science,  of i n f o r m a t i o n . more  linking  to  As  the to the  sophisticated,  information  to  the  12  The studied  information to i d e n t i f y  education,  user his  Havelock an  revealed  practitioner  and  research  especially  the  use  i n v e s t i g a t e d a number of  school, d i s t r i c t  them t o t h e  Other  users  of  Mikulecky that  can  into  and  the  information  state  useful  new  of  natural linkers  and  The  INFROSS  methods o f  Study  personal  and  new  ways  to of  communication,  professional factors by  educators  S  user  and  studies  personal  at  Palmour,  producing  a  suggested  styles  1974;  of  Martyn,  a model o f a t t i t u d e s c a l e  in  response  levels.  attitudes (King  study  (Hood & B l a c k w e l l ,  used/preferred  discussing  (1976) p r o v i d e d be  field  recommeded  Market  sources  researchers  investigation  the  was  intermediary.  Educational Information  the  1  them,.  (1971) and  o f a human  related  for  the  In  sciences  a t t i t u d e s to i n f o r m a t i o n . In  results  and  social  habits,.  examined  r e a c t i o n s , Line  packaging  1976)  n a t u r a l and  organizational role  negative  The  needs  (1967)  advocated  those  i n the  the  1974),.  development  measure. o f  a t t i t u d e to  i n f o r m a t i o n ,* If making" to the and  "information (Kochen,  essential  1974), t h e n  decision-makers  efficiently  i s the  ingredient  i n f o r m a t i o n must be  i n education*  How  in  made a v a i l a b l e  t o do t h i s  i s a major problem i n e d u c a t i o n  decision-  effectively  today,  13  CHAPTER I I  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The  problem  addressed  linkages  between  education  and t h o s e  by t h i s  information educators  study  is  contained in  the  that  in  of  improving  the l i t e r a t u r e o f  field  who  need  i t for  decision-making., The the  literature  user,  h i s information  behaviours  (and t h e  attitudes  i s  information The 1*  has i n d i c a t e d that  needs, h i s p r e s e n t  factors  essential  dissemination  specific  which  for  the  purposes o f t h i s  information (b)  them),  and  his  or r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f  study a r e : t o measure:  The p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l  o f experience,  about  information-seeking  influence design  knowledge  systems.  To d e v e l o p a q u e s t i o n n a i r e (a)  years  review  sense o f i s o l a t i o n ,  f a c t o r s of  level  position,  of education,  and  dissemination; The  psychological  factor  of  attitude  to  i n f o r m a t i o n ; and (c) used, and  the  The p u r p o s e s f o r s e e k i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources  the problems encountered  sources.  information,  i n seeking  the  sources  that i n f l u e n c e .their use, and  using  information  14  2.  To  personal  and  influence 3,  the  extent  psychological factors  the To  choice  of sources  determine  information and  investigate  the  scale reflects  to  professional,  each  other  and  to  'hierarchy  which 1 1  the a t t i t u d e - t o -  of a t t i t u d e d e v e l o p m e n t  growth*  The  questionnaire  knowledge b a s e f o r t h e between  information  content  needs survey,  the  they the  which  used.  Significance  by  relate  extent a  to  educators prefer*  form  he  transferring  being  of the  employed  in this  development or and  educators.  i t can  identify  surveyed  Giving  the  wants  i t ,  information  user  Study  and  study  from  specific  content  methods of  increase  literature  with  a  required  dissemination  that  the  a  connections  Used i n c o n j u n c t i o n  the  the  provide  improvement o f  the i n f o r m a t i o n  would  will  he  wants, i n  probability  of  t o the d e c i s i o n -  maker.  Analysis illuminate provide  the  data  conceptual  of  on  the  attitude  present the  to  attitudes  validity  of  framework f o r d e s i g n i n g  information of the  section  r e s p o n d e n t s and  Krathwohl's  taxonomy  s c a l e s t o measure  will will as  attitude.  a  15  Definition  The 1can  f o l l o w i n g terms are iS£.Q£ffi.£i-Qfl'  used  facts,  a  or  of  throughout t h i s  data  be  communicated  2.  Knowledge,. I n f o r m a t i o n  Terms  or  study;  statements of  thought  that  used. t h a t has  been  processed  by  the  user. -3it  in  Pser.  who  acquires  information i n order  to  use  decision-making.  4.  A t t i t u d e to Information.  affective goes  r e s p o n s e t©  from  ultimately 5. the  A person  mere  Measurement o f  an  individual's  educational information along  awareness  through  to a strongly positive  Sense o f I s o l a t i o n .  The  educatibnal information  responding,  a t t i t u d e to the  feeling  sources  the  a scale that  of  valuing  and  concept.  being  isolated  respondent  from  would l i k e  to  materials  to  use* 6*  Sources  of  which r e s p o n d e n t s go  Information. t o get the  Places,  people  i n f o r m a t i o n they  or  need.  Overview The  background  literature, definitions chapters.  of  the  a s t a t e m e n t of t h e of  key  problem, problem  the and  t e r m s have been g i v e n  related  research  i t s significance, i n the:the  first  and two  16  Chapter I I I w i l l will the  describe  the  pilot  study  sampling,  the  methodology t h a t Chapter  IV  administration conclusions  its  influence  final will  procedures of  the  study.  the  questionnaire,  on  the  questionnaire  be  gives  drawn  the  development of  of the  recommendations study;  and  introduce  including  questionnaire,  and  the.  It  the  statistical  used. the  analyses  questionnaire. from  the  and  Chapter V  study,  for further research  results  and  will  the a final  of discuss  the the  limitations, summary o f  the  CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURES To  investigate  the  psychological—that sources a  factors-^-professional,  influence educators  of educators  This chapter sampling  across  and  choices of information  1  u s e d , a q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e v e l o p e d  sample  personal  and a d m i n i s t e r e d  the province  of British  to  Columbia.  d e s c r i b e s t h e development o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e  procedures  and t h e data  analyses  used  i n t h e study*  Development o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e : T h i s s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s t h e development including  the p i l o t  describes  the  included  and i t s  influence*  revised questionnaire  each o f t h e e l e v e n is  study  as  of t h e : q u e s t i o n n a i r e  s e c t i o n s . A copy  with  A  later  section  specific  reference t o  pilot  questionnaire  of the  A p p e n d i x A; t h e f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e a p p e a r s i n  Appendix B* Ti§  £ilot  Study;  I n June, distributed junior  1977, an i n i t i a l  in a pilot  high  schools  questionnaires  study  a  of  t o three  from  response  rate  served  as  a  The partial  Market  Study  model many  questionnaire  elementary s c h o o l s Columbia.  a possible of  r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d where c h a n q e s s h o u l d questionnaire.  the  i n Burnaby, B r i t i s h  were r e t u r n e d  administrators,  form  60. l % i be made  138  and two  Eighty-three teachers  Analyses to  questionnaire.  However,  were i n t r o d u c e d  so t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  and  improve  content  and  of those  by Hood and B l a c k w e l l  f o r desiqn  was  the  (1976) of  the  d e l e t i o n s , c h a n g e s and a d d i t i o n s was more s u i t a b l e f o r  18  the study  total  population  p l a n n e d and  the  size,  the  Canadian  difference in  l o c a t i o n , the  emphasis  between  size  of  the  two  studies* As  a  result  s e v e r a l changes work  of  deleted study  which  were  study.  erratic  e a c h o f w h i c h used d i d not  reasons t h i s Sense requesting  item  does n o t  of  isolation  respondents' the  Besponses  to  variance,  s i n c e a l l the  r e t a i n e d b e c a u s e the  of i s o l a t i o n  The  information,  three  their  or  final  of  sources  subjects of  and  give  they  and  to  (1976). i n the  The  pilot  pilot  activities,  and  the  results  For  with  these  a  section  feelinqs  would  study  like  showed  This  the  of  to  use.  little  were l o c a t e d i n a s i n q l e Vancouver.  was  questionnaire.  a clearer indication  to  more  their  pilot  i s r e l a t e d to qeoqraphic  attitudes  the  information*  investiqated  the  in  time),  province-wide d i s t r i b u t i o n  development d i d e x i s t ,  confirmed  item  urban  section  should  was  result  o f whether  in  sense  distance.  a t t i t u d e - t o - i n f o r m a t i o n s e c t i o n was  respondents'  Mikulecky  in  work a c t i v i t i e s ,  this  self-reports  item  14  The  data,  the  useful  was  study  respondent to i n d i c a t e  appear i n the  to the c i t y  variance  of  information  this  pilot  oh  each of  more t h a n 60%  from  qreater  at  or  the  section  (several reported  r e v e a l new  adjacent  the  Besponses to  isolation  district  of  questionnaire*  asked  o f work t i m e s p e n t  from t h e  obtained  analyses  were made i n t h e  activities,  percentage  the  desiqned  concept  of  to  measure  educational  determine:whether a h i e r a r c h y  of a t t i t u d e  as  (1964)  suggested existence  study,  but  by  Krathwohl  of that  hierarchy  was  s e v e r a l items d i d not  and  partly  seem  to  t  19  reflect  the  stages  of  measure. T h e s e i t e m s  scale  reported  use  regression The was  as  an  the t o t a l  significant  appropriate  s c o r e on  correlate in  to  a  the  of  the  multiple  that  to  question to that  and  reviews"  "unpublished  comparing  the  (Hood and  the  pilot a  study  list  responses  of  the  of from  classified  use.  The  that  were  into a single  "notes  and  almost item.  study t o those  i t became  and  analysis  "dissertations  reports"  pilot  by  "bibliographies  and  merged  Blackwell,1976)  added.  were be  and  research  "personal l i b r a r y "  s h o u l d be  the  question,  of  responses,  p a i r s was  responses  an i t e m r e f l e c t i n g  in  classifyinq  frequency  very s i m i l a r  Each o f t h e s e  office"  by  f o r seeking information  study, fourteen sources  "abstracts,  had  Study,  purposes  developed.  identical*  own  a  open-ended  according  theses"  with  structured  was  the p i l o t  booklists"  Market  be  From t h e r e s p o n s e s  study,  respondents  or  to  concerned  purposes,  indicated  designed  analysis.  questionnaire.  In  were  o f e l e v e n of t h e f o u r t e e n s o u r c e s ,  included  the p i l o t  they  At t h e same t i m e ,  proved  section  fifteen  taxonomy  were r e w r i t t e n t o r e p r e s e n t t h e  s t a g e s more p r e c i s e l y ; attitude  the  evident and  files  of  In the  that in  my  20  Characteristics items i n the additional study;  pilot  In  me  aware o f new  information  information,  two  of  The  use.of the  problems  admitting  items  information",  revealed  a need  The  pilot  in  and my  Blackwell particular  pilot  study  "Is  likely  was  by  replaced  was  "ideal"  system  the  inhibit  a problem,  so  "finding  item  qualified was  added  question  person i n seeking valuable  to  "finding  latter  using  included  one,  The  r e s u l t s proved  and  seemed  and  open-ended  final  finding  rewritten,  f o r help from a  f o r the  three  Hood  of these  locate information".  study  include  to  word  t h a t any  were  because response t o the  eight  want".  i t e m s i n the  of  from  guestionnaire  I  the  to help  to  from the  d e v e l o p m e n t s " , and  four  understandable  as  i n the  about  these  personnel  so  section  word " u n d e r s t a n d a b l e " . respondents  eleven,  expanded  i t e m s were " I s r e s p o n s i v e  "Keeps  the  to  was  t h a t were i m p o r t a n t  These t h r e e  t o have t h e  sources  study  items  problem",  of  had  information.  i n redesigning  the '  study.  Sampling The  sampling  sample  of  school  and  teachers, district  Education subjects teacher  taught, training  are  for this  level.  The  teaching and  was  and  on  salary, level  J , i s i n Appendix 1  a Form J t e a c h e r  the  Ministry  of  grades  and  class of  I).  information  random at  employment*  and  a  personnel  Columbia  experience,  certification,  to i d e n t i f y  support  British  information  document,'Form  processed,  study  administrators  collects  copy o f t h i s data  plan  size,  education After  file  (a  these  classifies  21  teachers nine  and  administrators  f o r each  of  the  elementary  p o s i t i o n s of ' r e l i e v i n g heads'  at  study: of  the  vice-principals  •principal'—at  one  group,  school  were  nine  teachers,  3, s e c o n d a r y  principals  and  The  in  support  of  these  nine  c a t e g o r i e s . To do t h i s ,  previous  year's  teacher  information,  eventual  the  personnel--  would  sample.  proportions be  be  regarded  a question  the was n o t  1.  to  into  another. elementary  secondary 4.  school  elementary  principals  elementary  and  schools,  8.  district  sub-populations  in  d e s c r i p t i o n s of the  t h e Form J d a t a . were  derived size;  personnel  lists  district-level initially  determine  so  These to  of  Using that  sampling produce  supervisory  clear  as. ' a d m i n i s t r a t i v e '  was added  merged  from t h e 1976 f i l e  of sufficient  Because  were a m b i q u o u s — ^ i t  should  the  from  were a p p l i e d t o d i s t r i c t  final  categories they  sampling  samples  proportions  enumerate  p o p u l a t i o n s were o b t a i n e d  figures,  district,  personnel.  was t o  those  each  schools,  step  constructed  Principals category—  5. s e c o n d a r y  second  each  categories  same  heads,  secondary  and 9. d i s t r i c t  the  were  secondary  personnel  in  from t h e p r e s e n t  position:  department  6. s u p p o r t  personnel  administrators  and  The  'department  were merged i n t o  of  vice-principals,  vice-principals, 7. s u p p o r t  superintendents  2. j u n i o r  teachers,  the  Within  categories  levels.  'position').  to  personnel  positions,  l e v e l s and  was t o d e f i n e  level.  and a s s i s t a n t  in  secondary  were o m i t t e d  assigned  and a l l s u p p o r t  This resulted  and  (hereafter c a l l e d  each  superintendents  level  step i n sampling  professional level  and  to eighteen  t e a c h e r s ' a t both  elementary  The f i r s t  according  or  how  whether 'support'  'district'  22  personnel this  spend t h e  largest  amount o f t h e i r  g u e s t i o n — ' a s s i s t i n g t e a c h e r s ' and  coordinating'—indicated •supervising/assessing indicated  support  administrative functions.  responses  were c o d e d , t h e  items  placement o f each respondent, responses  that  nearly  viewed, themselves and  final  more as  1977  sample  teachers  in  a  the  were s e l e c t e d  As  was  the  support  other  district  were used obvious  district  two--  personnel  —  position  to verify  in  personnel than  i .  number between category  list:  was  chosen.  The  =  by  sorting  information f i l e  representative sample.  T h i s was  1 and  the  approximately  identified  coding labelled,  the the and  as s u p e r v i s o r s  Subjects  from  done by  1 / p ( i ) , and  starting  T h e r e a f t e r , every sampling  t h e t a r g e t sample  size  would  were  population of teachers i n category i T a r g e t sample s i z e f o r c a t e g o r y i  p (i)  a t random, a  that  person on  chosen  result.  of  category  proportion  choosing, with  district  distribution  1 / p ( i ) t h person  proportions  September  each p o s i t i o n  sampling  first  the  according to  geographic  using the corresponding  category  P (i)  was  Form J t e a c h e r  code, to ensure  for  all  while the  and  'administrative duties'  checked  It  answers t o  evaluators*  The 30,  and  Two  'curriculum planning  services,  teachers'  time*  the so  That i s :  in list that  23  All with  the school d i s t r i c t s i n  a  letter  request requestinq  districts survey. study  permission  permission  (Campbell  Eiver  schools  deleted  from  were n o t s e n t  procedures, district  1,640  offices,  Five  mailed  in  target  sample,  percentaqe  E).  had been u s e d  the l i s t ,  and f o r w a r d e d  Only  two  the  pilot  and t h e t e a c h e r s from  those  to  As  were  from  the o r i g i n a l  number  contacted  t h e survey (the  Appendix  questionnaires.  directly  were  and Richmond) r e f u s e d t o p e r m i t t h e  a  distributed  there to  mailinq,  Appendix  in  result  reminder  F).  of  these  to school  respondents.  a l l non-respondents  copy o f t h e p o s t c a r d i s i n  and  i s  questionnaires  weeks a f t e r  province  to distribute  The s c h o o l s i n Burnaby t h a t were  were  for  the  postcards  i n t h e sample  Table  of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s mailed  1  gives  (a the  and t h e number  o f useable r e t u r n s . Table 1 Sampling  Position  Elementary Teachers Secondary Teachers S e c o n d a r y D. Heads P r i n c i p a l s (Elem.) P r i n c i p a l s (Sec.-/ S u p p o r t (Elem.) Support (Sec.) Administrator (Dist.) Support (District) Totals  Target Sample  Frame and  Returns  Mailed  Returns Usable  %age  400 300 150 130 65 100 125 190 190  394 292 147 121 62 97 118 195 214  236 186 106 97 46 69 66 31 200  59.9 63.7 72.1 80.2 74.2 71.1 55.9 15.9* 93.5*  1650  1640  1037  63.23  * t h e a m b i g u i t y o f t h e s e r o l e s seems e v i d e n t h e r e , I f categories a r e combined, then t h e response rate c a t e g o r i e s i s 231/409 =56.48%  these for  two both  24  In  1,078  total,  returned,  or  Twenty-six  of the  reason  for  their  (65.7i&) non-returns  r e t u r n s were  the  lack  of  (5),  hopeless  t o t r y t o change t h i n g s  the  weeks f o l l o w i n g the  wrote t o e x p l a i n t h e i r  reminder  card,  admitted  having  claimed  to  lost  have  uut  not  their  half  of  Reasons  preferred (1)  and  not  them that to  the o r i g i n a l the  with  given  answer  (3),  had  teaching fifteen received  guestionnaire;  questionnaire  responses,  but  they  no  were  the r e m i n d e r ,  non-response. S i x  were  respondents.  r e s i g n e d from  mailing of  or misplaced  mailed  questionnaires  were e x p l a i n e d by  response.  lack  subjects  time  the  blank;  included:  (4). In the  of  of  had  and not  five four been  received.  D e s c r i p t i o n of the F i n a l The  final  s e c t i o n s and  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  their  Questionnaire  divided  into these  appropriate sub-sections:  D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e User Position Years of Experience Sense o f I s o l a t i o n L e v e l of Education Information Dissemination A t t i t u d e to Information Information Seeking Behavior Purposes f o r Seeking Information Sources C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Sources P r o b l e m s i n F i n d i n g and U s i n g I n f o r m a t i o n Your " i d e a l "  System.  three  major  25  In  the  summary page  covering  of r e s u l t s of  reguested  the  each  respondent  was o f f e r e d  i f he gave h i s name and a d d r e s s  questionnaire.  t h e summary.  distribution  letter,  t o each  One  A brief  of these  hundred  report  has  and  on  the  a  last  twenty-three  been  desiqned  for  each  of the eleven  individuals.  P.escrip_tion o f t h e U s e r The  followinq  section  will  s e c t i o n s i n the questionnaire* and  the reasons f o r i n c l u d i n g Position.  A description each  Nine a l t e r n a t i v e s  Elementary Junior  discuss  of  o f them w i l l  were  the  be p r e s e n t e d .  included:  school teacher  or secondary  high school teacher  Secondary  department  Principal  or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l  (elementary)  Principal  or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l  (secondary)  head  Support  p e r s o n i n an elementary, s c h o o l  Support  person i n a secondary  District  administrator  District  support person  researcher,  Each  school  ( s u p e r i n t e n d e n t or a s s i s t a n t ) (consultant*  supervisor,  etc.).  respondent  was  requested  to  check  the appropriate  combination  o f a l t e r n a t i v e s i f i n h i s work he  was  more  one p o s i t i o n *  checked  one,  than  and t h e s u b s e q u e n t  taught  and how  respondents  t h e n , was coded  V e r y few r e s p o n d e n t s questions,  askinq  t i m e was s p e n t , were used  to  a  questions  single  f o r each  position.  respondent.  Just  which  to assign  assiqned more  qrades each  one p o s i t i o n  to than were  of these category,  26  Years  of Experience  i n d i c a t e t h e number had,*  This  item  (Experience).  of years  of  was used i n l i e u  was used by Hood & B l a c k w e l l experience than  would  would  years  would be l e s s Sense to  of  report  not  to information-seeking that  which  would  isolated,  a  the  years habits  corresponding  Each r e s p o n d e n t  he: f e l t like  Four  isolated,  of more  question  was  asked  from  the  choices  were  considerably  Because t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  i t  would  is  related  urban  isolated  t o use*  somewhat  isolated*  large  f o r age, s u c h a s that  they  were  be p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e to  actual  geographic  c e n t r e , o r whether i t i s due t o  factors.  Level check  of Education  their  bachelors^ of  he  province-wide,  from  o f one a s k i n g  (Isolation).  'sense o f i s o l a t i o n *  distance  experience  omitted.  to  and s e r i o u s l y  distributed  other  deqree  sources  presented;  whether  t o be  Isolation  the  information  isolated  likely  were a s k e d t o  professional  ( 1 9 7 6 ) . I t was f e l t  be r e l a t e d i n a g e , and  Respondents  sources*  and  education  sources on  Respondents  were  earned degree from t h i s l i s t :  masters or d o c t o r a t e .  education  higher  highest  (Education).  the  used  The r e l a t i o n s h i p may  awareness  reflect and  use  asked  high  between  to  school, level  the i n f l u e n c e o f of  information  27  Information for  the  Dissemination  respondent s information  respondent  was  information  o r how  The  to  a month, o n c e a Responses  which  to  through  identify o f t e n he  time i n t e r v a l s  natural  perception  9  disseminates  this  positions  emphasized  the  more  identify  of  Each for  colleagues;  than  once  a  individuals or they  information.  importance  who  came t o him  to h i s  most a c t i v e , o r p e r c e i v e  most a c t i v e , i n d i s s e m i n a t i n g  one  t h a n once a month, o n c e  i n a school or d i s t i c t , are  asked  channels.  often others  day,  might  as  person-to-person  were: l e s s a  T h i s item  himself  gave i n f o r m a t i o n  once  item  of  how  presented  week,  'linkers'  (Dissemination),;  may  who  are  indicate  themselves to  In J u l y ,  locating  day.  1977,  these  be  Hood natural  disseminators:  The u l t i m a t e u s e r may be a poor t a r g e t , We may have t o go u p s t r e a m and i d e n t i f y t h e i n t e r m e d i a r y , t h e person who tends t o d i s s e m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n , and d e s i g n our i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e s t o s u i t h i s n e e d s . . . . W e need to focus on t h e l i n k e r s , t h e e d u c a t i o n a l middlemen, t h e g a t e k e e p e r s , We need t o l o c a t e them and study their present disposition and their n e e d s so t h a t we can f i n d new ways t o s e r v e them (Note 1 ) .  Attitude written  to  to  Information  reflect  (1964). Each i t e m reguired  to  whether t h e  the  five  described  circle behavior  a was  a  available;  neutral  s c a l e . High scores attitude to  on  of  behavior,  "very  from  used so  Fifteen  one  items  Krathwohl's  and  u n l i k e me"  response  this  information.  stages  number,  even number o f r e s p o n s e s was be  (Attitude).  Taxonomy  respondents  were  to f o u r * to i n d i c a t e  or "very  like  that a midpoint  was  were  t h u s not  me".  The  would  not  permitted  scale indicate a positive  by  the  (favorable)  28  Information  Seeking  Purposes,, information  Behavior  A list  was  of f i f t e e n  presented.  asked  t o check t h e frequency  that  purpose*  sometimes,  or  educators' to  The  Data  purposes  (libraries,  Thirteen sources etc.),  persons  position,  and  be  used  c a t e g o r i e s f o r some a n a l y s e s  were  listed,  including  places  Both  formal  (print)  source,, c h o o s i n g  and  informal  to indicate  from  never,  their  rarely,  and f r e q u e n t l y . judged  frequency  to identify i t i s also attitude,  dissemination identify  never,  i s o f v a l u e a s an i n d e x o f  of  use o f s o u r c e s  v a r i a b l e f o r many o f t h e a n a l y s e s i n t h i s  sources,  or  (colleagues, e x p e r t s ) , or m a t e r i a l s  journals)*  o f use f o r e a c h  sometimes,  important  was  information f o r  seldom  were i n c l u d e d . R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d  frequency  The  were:  of position  seeking  item, t h e respondent  f o r w h i c h he s o u g h t choices  for  i n seekinq information,* I t can a l s o  number  computers,  sources  each  purposes  Analyses).  Sources.  (books,  For  f r e q u e n t l y , This item  reduce . t h e  (see  three  possible  the comparative  important  to i d e n t i f y  study.  frequency  identify  experience,  influence that  the  to  education  o f sources that  t h e problems p e r c e i v e d  by  While  i t i s  o f use o f t h e s e  which  u s e . I t would a l s o  characteristics  i s the dependent  or  factors  information  be o f  value  make them  educators  of  to  popular  in  using  them*  Characteristics characteristics  of  of sources  Sources.,  (Characteristics).  were p r e s e n t e d  and  each  Eleven  respondent  was  asked  to i n d i c a t e  importance  and  which  each  was  of l i t t l e  t o him.  tryinq  to t r a n s f e r  w h i c h methods t o u s e .  &t t h e  same  are  not  information i n  time,  important  quite  characteristics  can h e l p those  characteristics  Levels of  importance,  v e r y i m p o r t a n t . Knowledqe o f which  important  choosing  important  were: o f no i m p o r t a n c e ,  important are  how  may  understanding prove  of  equal  value.  Problems i n F i n d i n g section asked  presented  to  difficulty.  problem,  very  existinq  3,  had  This  encounter,  and  t o which each  is a  u s e r s miqht  the of  extent response  were  considerable of the  listed:  difficulty,  no and  problems i d e n t i f i e d  have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r ways t o  The  information quickly  importance Market  included  users could "usually information"*  indicated  problem,  may  ''getting the  information.  for  levels  Understanding  seekers  measure  1976)  Four  (Problems).  by  simplify  systems*  Item to  indicate  little  extreme d i f f i c u l t y . information  Using Information^  ten problems t h a t  repondents  genuine  and  Study  of  fast  enough"  turn-around  q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Hood  a separate q u e s t i o n about allow to elapse a f t e r The  response  to  was  this  included  i n securing &  Blackwell,  t h e amount o f  realizing  time  the  need  item i n t h e i r  study  that:  about 30 p e r c e n t o f these users needed information w i t h i n one d a y . . * . n e a r l y t h e same p r o p o r t i o n (29%) can wait two o r t h r e e d a y s ; a n o t h e r f o u r t h (24%) can w a i t a b o u t a week....The r e l a t i v e l y short response times s u g g e s t t h a t m a i l exchange would be t o l e r a b l e f o r o n l y a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of the u s e r s - . . . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t most i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s must be l o c a l o r a e c e s s i b i g t h r o u g h tele-communicat|.on. c h a n n e l s (p. IV-29) i  30  In  the  present  determine  study,  whether  special  this  a t t e n t i o n i s paid  insistence  on  to t h i s  fast  item,  response  to is  replicated* Your  '.'ideal" This  express The They  System.  question  their  own  final  was  i n c l u d e d to g i v e r e s p o n d e n t s a chance  i d e a s a b o u t what methods would be  g u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d of these  are i n v e s t i g a t e d s i n g l y  discover  the  present  information-seeking British  and  personal  behaviors  address taken  each  guestionnaire number. The  label,  from  system".  the That  was  sample  to  a t t i t u d e s and  of  educators  in  Methodology  information  items  Missing  items  was  list. were i t e m  was  responses  (the m i d p o i n t  badly  district  entered  section  derived  fifteen  was  received,  hand  Responses analyzed,  i n the  to  so t h e  misrepresentative.  (There  were 62  return the.data  "your  'ideal'  according  to  the  then  the  the  master  to  attitude total  t o t a l scores missing  an  with  an to  score  data  a t t i t u d e scale:were  scale)  responses).  given  from the  except  tabulated  the  the t o t a l  of  was  i n t o a computer f i l e  transferred  to items  it  code, taken  responses to a l l s e c t i o n s  empirically  of  combinations  Columbia.  identification  2.5  various  sections*  Processing As  the  a  most u s e f u l .  eleven  characteristics, of  Statistical Data  in  to  for  file.  coded  as  would n o t  be  scores, or  0.4%  31  Data  Analyses Methods  of  data  analysis  tabulations  o f d i s t i b u t i o n s , rank  analysis*  analysis  comparisons,  univariate  analysis,  factor  (Note  The  2*  of  specifically  this  and  in  Scheffe  the  Notes  cluster multiple  tables,  regression  mentioned  simple  means,  freguency  multiple  programs  referenced  by  with  bivariate  analysis  study i n c l u d e :  ordering  variance  and  computer  in  in  which  item  analysis. text  are  precede  the  Bibliography).  UBC:TBP 1977) the  ( Triangular  was used fifteen  means  a n a l y s i s by  was the  This  series  of  used a s i n p u t UBC:C-GBOUP  procedure  •group', t h e n  Package;  position  were used  information,.  program  defined  (Patterson  each  of  within  the groups.  array  &  of  nine:  Whitaker,  positions  as a of  A l l nine: categories  f o r the univariate  Position*  The f o u r  position  cluster  analysis  provided  more n e a r l y  analyses o f variance  UBC:MVTAB  personal item  and t h e m u l t i p l e  univariate  factors, analysis  and b i v a r i a t e t a b l e s  groups  developed  egual c e l l  regression  ( M u l t i v a t i a t e Contingency  generated  (Nelson,  This  data f o r h i e r a r c h i c a l grouping  included  Standard  Tenisci,  a  s t e p s so a s t o m i n i m i z e t h e e s t i m a t e o f v a r i a t i o n i n  o f purpose  and  &  r e d u c e d t h e number o f g r o u p s by one i n e a c h  profiles  1974)  Le  t o p r o d u c e t h e mean f o r e a c h P o s i t i o n on e a c h o f  purposes f o r seeking  (9x15)  1977).  Regression  including was  done,  attitude using  that  i n the  sizes f o r the  analysis.  Tabulations;  and b i v a r i a t e d a t a  of  Bjerring,  on t h e p o s i t i o n a l to  the  1974) on t h e i t e m s of t h e a t t i t u d e . s c a l e .  information. program LEBTAP This  produced  32  correlation  matrices  f o r sub-tests  (stages).  Total  scores  d e v e l o p e d by t h i s a n a l y s i s were used a s raw d a t a f o r a n a l y s i s o f responses, the  using  SPSS:GOTTMAN ( N i e ,  1975), t o d i s c o v e r  whether  h i e r a r c h i c a l n a t u r e o f t h e taxonomy h a d b e e n c o n f i r m e d .  ordering  by means was u s e d t o r e p o r t  according  to  t h e sense o f i s o l a t i o n  r e s u l t s on  school  Rank  regions  o f t h e i r e d u c a t o r s , and o f  purposes, s o u r c e s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f sources and problems. Univariate the  program  the  dependent  independent  one-way a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e  SSPS:ONEWAY variables  variables,  (Nie, and (2)  each o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l and variables,  and  were  1975) e m p l o y i n g Position  and  done,  using  (1) P u r p o s e s a s  Attitude  as t h e  Sources as dependent v a r i a b l e s and personal  factors  as  independent  (3) C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s o u r c e s a s t h e d e p e n d e n t  variables  and  Position  variables.  S c n e f f e ' s m u l t i p l e c o m p a r i s o n s were c o m p u t e d f o r e a c h  a n a l y s i s which y i e l d e d Sources  1975)  Attitude  were a n a l y z e d by m u l t i p l e  Factor  as  the  independent  a significant F-ratio.  (Brown, 1977) s i x p e r s o n a l variables.  and  regression  and p r o f e s s i o n a l  using  BMD:02R  f a c t o r s as p r e d i c t o r  a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d u s i n g  SPSS:FiCTOR  t o i d e n t i f y orthogonal f a c t o r s of sources.  (Nie,  33  CHAPTER IV RESULTS Data a n a l y s e s descriptions the  extent  of  Other  them,  and  the  and  information;  Other  were  designed  information sources Experience,  Attitude  influence  problems  Relationships were a l s o  analyses  information  characteristics  the  personal f a c t o r s  the  study  used,  scale;  to  provide  and a n a l y s e s o f  Education,  Isolation,  the  of s o u r c e s  a n a l y s e s examined r e s p o n d e n t s '  information, to  the  this  t o which P o s i t i o n *  Dissemination, used;  in  choice  purposes  for  seeking  of sources that are important  encountered between  these  when factors  they  seek  and s e l e c t e d  calculated.  were d e s i g n e d The s c a l e  postulated hierarchical  to  examine  was a n a l y z e d  nature  of  the  Attitude  t o determine  the  taxonomy  to  whether  could  be  confirmed. Results  of the.study  are presented  1. D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e I n f o r m a t i o n Behavior, by  User,  here 2.  i n three sections:  Information  and 3. I d e a l Systems o f i n f o r m a t i o n t r a n s f e r  Seeking suggested  users.  Description Six  questionnaire i t e m s —  Education, respondents.  Dissemination,  o f t h e User Position, and  Experience,  Isolation,  Attitude—describe.  the  34  Position Respondents  chose  g i v e s the d i s t r i b u t i o n  from and  nine position categories.  percentages of those responses. Table  Distribution  o f Respondents  2  over P r o f e s s i o n a l  Position  Frequency  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  236 186 106 97 46 69 66 31 200  E l e m e n t a r y T e a c h e r (K-7) S e c o n d a r y T e a c h e r (8-12) S e c o n d a r y Dept. Heads Elementary A d m i n i s t r a t o r s Secondary A d m i n i s t r a t o r s Support (Elementary) Support (Secondary) Disrict Administrators D i s t r i c t Support Personnel  Total  nine  questionnaire  categories include  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and categories  are  tabulations*  These  of  fewer  most  groups  each  seeking  of  used  in  a l l  the  univariate  n i n e c a t e g o r i e s range  w i t h more n e a r l y  g r o u p s one  These  135  (grouping)  a t a t i m e , and  i n size  i t was  equal c e l l  by  and  in  The  f r o m 31  as  analysis.  analysis  'error*  optimum number o f g r o u p s i s i n d i c a t e d  to  236. have some  computed  purposes f o r  means were used  r e p o r t s the  to  To combine  each o f the.15  This  nine  bivariate  desirable  sizes*  the  teachers,  g r o u p s , means were  t h e n i n e p o s i t i o n s on  cluster  provided  support personnel i n the province*  information.  stepwise  100.0  of the p o s i t i o n s h e l d  of these n i n e c a t e q o r i e s i n t o fewer  The  Percentaqe 22* 8 11:9 10. 9. 4, 6. 6.4 3,.0 19 i 3  position  In o r d e r t o do a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e ,  for  Positions  1037  The  Table 2  input  f o r each  when a s h a r p  to  a  merges merging,*  35  rise 3,  i n e r r o r value  the  optimum  (error=9i02),  step  merged  secondary  number  but  administrators,  occurs.  had  of  In  this  groups  at  that  not  been j o i n e d  district  step  case, might  the  and  reported have  smallest  t o any  administrators  administrators  as  with  been  group,  other  in  five  district  g r o u p . The elementary  resulted i n four  Table  next and  groups of s i m i l a r  size* Table Results  Number o f G r o u p s  3  of C l u s t e r A n a l y s i s of  Positions  Positions Joined*  Efror  Cum.  8  2 & 3  3, 148  7  1 6 6  3*585  6.732  6  4 6 5  6.899  13,631  5  7 6 9  9.028  22.669  4  8 6465  14.265  36.924  * g r o u p numbers a r e  When t h i s clusters 1. 2* 3. 4*  and  identified  i n Table  a n a l y s i s i s used,  their  frequencies  the  3.148  2.  four  resulting  are:  Elementary Teachers & Elementary Support Personnel Secondary Teachers & S e c o n d a r y D e p a r t m e n t Heads Secondary Support P e r s o n n e l & D i s t r i c t Support personnel Elementary 6 Secondary & D i s t r i c t Administrators  Error  304 292 265 173.  Position  36  As  a  check  on  the  effectiveness  grouping,  a oneway a n a l y s i s  Position  cluster  information respondent are  as as  summarized  as the  the  of  the  variance  independent  dependent  unit  of  i n Table  4.  and was  Table  performed  variable,  measure  observation*  usefulness of  and  the  Results  of  this using  attitude  to  individual this  analysis  4  Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : A t t i t u d e as a F u n c t i o n o f P o s i t i o n C l u s t e r  Source  df  Between c l u s t e r s Among I n d i v i d u a l s within c l u s t e r s  Total *  Sum  Squares  Mean S q u a r e  3  6,561,97  2,187.3  1032  40,768,11  39:6  1035  F  55.262*  47,330,08  p<,0001  These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e suggested  by  each  in attitude,  on  of  other  the  purposes f o r  groups  of  attitudes differences  grouping  are  and  the  that  which  information,. discussed  four  procedure d i f f e r the  seeking information  positions to  that  are The  position  s i g n i f i c a n t l y from  clustering i s valid  procedure  i n Chapter  V.  and  based  for d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g  characterized nature  clusters  by  extent  different of  these  37  Experience Table  5  position held. and  coded  as  year  intervals Table  than  indicates  years  Experience  was r e p o r t e d a s e x a c t  two-digit  of  numbers.  experience  Scores  as  related  number o f  to  years  were g r o u p e d i n t o t e n -  for analysis.  5 indicates  that  77;3% o f a l l r e s p o n d e n t s  20 y e a r s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l  have  less  experience.  Table 5 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f E x p e r i e n c e and P o s i t i o n : F r e g u e n c i e s aa€ P e r c e n t a g e s Position  Eange  of  <10  10-19  20-29  Y e a r s of  Experience  Freguency per Category  30-39  El; Teachers Sec.Teachers Sec.D.Heads El.Principal Sec. P r i n c i p . El.Support Sec.Support Diss. Admin; Dis.Support  59.3 55.9 37.7 26.8 23, 9 49.3 51.5 3.2 40.0  30.5 27.4 38.7 39.2 47*8 31.9 27.3 32.3 29.0  8.4 13.4 17.9 33.0 23.9 11.6 13.6 51.6 25.0  1.7 3;4 5.7 1.0 4.3 7.2 7,6 12*9 6.0  236 186 106 97 46 69 66 31 200  % of T o t a l s Freguencies  45.3 470  32.0 332  18.3 190  4.3 45  1037  The  obtained  sguare=38.03,  result  p<,01).  is  and  experience,  and t h a t f e w e r t h a n  more  30 y e a r s  the  than  secondary  three support  while  60%  experience.  of  statistically  teachers  g r o u p s have l e s s  district  significant (Chimore  have l e s s  2% o f e l e m e n t a r y  of experience.  Almost than  administrators  22.8 17.9 10.2 9.3 4.4 6.7 6.4 3*1 19.3 100.0  I t i s noteworthy t h a t  elementary  Percen of Total  than  than  55%  of  10 y e a r s o f  teachers  have  50% o f t h e members o f 10  years  experience,  have more t h a n  20  years  38  Isolation  Table.6 question to  "How  use?"  have no  presents  and  the  isolated position.  relationship  cross-tabulation do  you  I t was  f e e l from  of responses sources  hypothesized  that  you  to  the  would  like  position  would  t o sense of i s o l a t i o n . Table  6  Cross-tabulation o f I s o l a t i o n and P o s i t i o n : F r e q u e n c i e s and Percentages Position  Range o f  Sense o f  Serio  Consid  5.3 5.0 7.7 4,3  El.Teacher Sec.Teacher Sec:D.Head El.Principal Sec.Principal El*Support Sec.Support Dis.Admini* Dis* Support  7.3 6.1 3,2 7.1  15, 4 21.1 10.6 14. 0 17.4 10. 1 20.0 9.7 17.2  % of t o t a l s Frequencies  5. 6 57  16.0 162  As  expected,  the  .  Isolation Somew  Not  49.3 50.0 51.9 49.5 52.2 58.0 43. 1 51.6 48.0  30.0 23. 9 29.8 32.3 30. 4 24. 6 30. 8 35* 5 27.8  227 180 104 93 46 69 65 31 198  49.9 505  28. 0 289  1013  results  of the  (p=.78). The  categories offered  item  •seriously ,  'considerably',  isolated* large or  1 1  In t h e  pilot  urban d i s t r i c t ,  seriously  like.to  use.  seriously distributed  study, 13.2%  isolated In  these  isolated,  of  from  results even  province-wide.  which the the  was  22.4 17.8 17,8 9.0 4:5 6. 8 6:4 3. 1 19.6  test  i n response 'somewhat', administered  respondents  felt  o n l y 21.52% f e l t this  were  not  to  this  or  'not'  in  one  considerably  information sources  though  Percent of Total N  100.0  chi-square  significant were  Frequency per Category  they  would  considerably questionnaire  or was  39  To  further investigate this  to the  guestion  which  the  has  school d i s t r i c t s  75  regions  order of the isolation  were c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d w i t h  respondent  were  worked. The organized  used a s a r e a s districts  question*  sense of  sense of  by  into  f o r the  scores  Sense o f I s o l a t i o n  geographic of  British  regions*  on  the  in  Columbia  These  a n a l y s i s * Table means  area  twelve  7 gives  the  sense  of  in this table:indicate less  f o r Each  7  of Twelve E d u c a t i o n  Rank  Region  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  6. G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r 11. V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d S o u t h 12. V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d N o r t h 5. F r a s e r V a l l e y 3. Okanagan 4. M a i n l i n e C a r i b o o 9. N o r t h e r n I n t e r i o r 10. Peace R i v e r 2. West K o o t e n a y 1. E a s t Kootenay 8, N o r t h C o a s t 7. South C o a s t  Table of  12  responses  isolation.  Table  sense  the  province  decreasing  Higher  isolation,  8 presents Isolation  independent v a r i a b l e .  n  the  r e s u l t s of  as the  352 141 47 97 100 77 67 36 32 33 30 22  a n a l y s i s of  Regions  Mean S e n s e of I s o l a t i o n 3* 12 3.04 2. 98 2. 94 2,93 2L91 2. 84 2.77 2.56 2.45 2.33 2*32  variance  d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e and  using  R e g i o n as  the  40  Table 8 Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : Sense o f I s o l a t i o n a s a F u n c t i o n o f B e g i o n Source  df  Sum o f Squares  Mean Square  Between r e g i o n s 11 Among i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n r e g i o n s 1022  46.5061  4.2278  843.1177  0.8250  Total  889.6238  1033  F 5.125  **  **p<.001 On page boundaries  a  areas  two d i s t r i c t s Examination  reveals  that  influences contains district West  far  from  of  show  Columbia  indicates  the  t o them.  (Two  C a m p b e l l E i v e r and Eichmond  of the  map  geographic  and  the  t h e sense o f i s o l a t i o n . the  respondents  who  each  although  contained  sense o f i s o l a t i o n  order  The S o u t h most  of  regions  factor  Coast, isolated,  respondents  who  two r e g i o n s  To d e t e r m i n e  East felt  are  why  reguire further  study.  and quite  not  as  regions some  r e g i o n s do n o t r e p o r t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y would  7,  yet t h i s  as a r e t h e two n o r t h e r n  Interior,.  which  Begion  t o V a n c o u v e r . The  g e o g r a p h i c a l l y those  centres of population  f a r northern  rank  feel  i s geographically adjacent  districts,  the survey).  d i s t a n c e i s not the only  o f P e a c e B i v e r and N o r t h e r n these  British  t h a t d i d not permit  Kootenays!  isolated,  map  o f t h e r e g i o n s and t h e numbers a s s i g n e d  blacked-out the  41,  of high  41  BRITISH  COLUMBIA  S C H O O L  DISTRICTS  Femie Cranbrook Ktmbafky Windermere B 10 11 12 13 14 15  10  16 1? 18  eo  2 -  54  Catitogar Arrow L e k e i Trail Grand f o r k i K e n t * Vetlev Southern Okenepen Penticton Keremeot Princeton Golden Revelttoke A r m n r o n » SpeJfarncheen Vernon Central O k a n f e n Kemloopt North Thompson C*wi»o C h i k o t l n Oueywt LlUooet  30 31  South Cerfeoo Martin  32 33 34  Mop* CnillrwKk Abbottford Lanfllev Surrey Delta Richmond  35 36 37 36  Re Jion  39 40 41 47  Vancouver New Westminster Burnab y Maple R idot  43 44 45 46 47 48 40 SO 52 64 55 56 67 59 60 61 62  Coquitlvn North Vancouver Wrtl Vancouver Sac Kali Powell U n a H o w l Sound Ocean Falls Oueen Char tout Prince Ruperi Smiiheri Burnt Lake Necheko Prince Gecee Peace R n * r South Peace RWrr North Create* Victoria Sooke Saanich G u l l Itiendi Cowichen Lake Cowichen Nanatmo Ouelicurn  63 64 65 66 68 69 70  Albern.  71 77 76 76 77 60 81 64  Courtenav Campbell River Mtuton Aftanu Herrraon Summerlend Kittmat f o n Nelaon Vancouver ItlendWttt Vancouver Utarxl N o n h O n i o n Katlo St.bine Ter-»c* Shutwap NilhQ*  85  East  Kootenay  West  Kootenay  87 B8 89 9?  Okanagan  Mainline-Cariboo Fraser  Valley  Greater  Vancouver  T  South Coast North Coast Northern Peace  Interior  River  Vancouver  Island  South  Vancouver  Island  North  w  10  Figure 1 B r i t i s h Columbia School D i s t r i c t s by Regions  42  Ed uc at  ion  Table of  9 r e p o r t s the l e v e l  t i e nine  of education  of  personnel i n  each  position categories. Table  9  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f E d u c a t i o n and P o s i t i o n ; F r e g u e n c i e s and Percentages Position  El.Teacher Sec* T e a c h e r See.D.Head Elem.Princ. Sec.Princ. Elem; S u p p o r t Sec.Support D i s t * Admin. DistiSupport % of Total Freguencies  Eange o f L e v e l  of  Highsc  Bach  Masters  29.8 4,* 9 2.-9 2.1  7,^0  66.2 79.7 68.9 69, 1 34.8 61.2 66.7 12.9 45.0  3.5 14.8 27.2 26.6 63.0 16.4 30.3 77.4 46.5  9.7 1.5  228 182 103 94 46 67 66 31 200  11. 1 113  61.6 627  26.1 265  1.2 12  1017  22.4 3.0  Statistical 11%  of the  emerge. 22.4% In  cells  Across  analysis  of elementary  the  sample, support  province of B r i t i s h  the  number  normal  include  many  while  school.  specialists  of elementary  p e r s o n n e l have no Columbia  who  teacher  Also  a university  training  included  have  specific  degree.  and  in  facts  do  teachers  and  university  i t is still  completing  years,  22.4 17.9 10, 1 . 9i. 2 4.5 6.7 6.6 3. 1 19. 7  i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e because  some i n t e r e s t i n g  29.8%  Percent of Total N  100,0  degree*  possible to  obtained  may  their  category  job g u a l i f i c a t i o n s  A  have been i n teaching  programs were s t i l l this  get  a b a c h e l o r ' s degree.  of the t e a c h e r s i n t h i s category  profession for  certificates  .4 .5 1.0 2. 1 2. 2  of t h i s t a b l e  a teaching certificate.without large  Doct  a r e empty, a l t h o u g h the  Freguency per Category  Education  in  are which do  the many not  43  Dissemination Table "How  10 r e p o r t s r e s p o n s e s  o f t e n do  information  your  of practitioners  colleaques  o r do you q i v e  come  to  you  t o the question for  educational  s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n t o them?"  Table  10  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f D i s s e m i n a t i o n and P o s i t i o n : F r e q u e n c i e s and P e r c e n t a g e s Position  Frequency of Dissemination <1/mon 1/mon  El.Teacher Sec.Teacher Sec.DbHead El.Princip. SeCiPrincip. El.Support Sec. S u p p o r t D i s . Admin* Dis.Support % of Total Frequencies  The  15.2 16.8 6.6 1.1 2.2 4.4 4.7 3.0  23. 1 38.7 22.7 36.8 17.9 42.4 7.4 30.9 13.0 15.2 13.2 36.8 7.8 . 40.6 3.2 6.5 4,5 20.5  8.5 87  14.8 151  relationship  Dissemination  proved  Chi-square=297.57, respondents, information or  giving  1/day >1/day  32.4 332  18.7 22.2 26.4 42.6 47.8 29.4 . 26.6 35.5 30.5  4.3 1.6 6.6 18, 1 21.7 16.2 20. 3 54.8 41.5  230 185 106 94 46 68 64 31 200  27.6 283  16. 7 171  1024  ' between  Position  t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y p<.0001).  district  According  administrators  disseminating  position  (once  a>  support  personnel  22.5 18: 1 10.3 9.2 4.5 6.6 6.3 3.0 19.5 100.0  and  Information  significant  (Pearson's  to t h i s s e l f - r e p o r t of are  the:  group, with  i n f o r m a t i o n once a day o r more. The  active  elementary  1/week  Frequency Percent per of Category Total N  most  90.7% a s k e d f o r  next  three  day o r more) d i s s e m i n a t i n g g r o u p s a r e (72.0%),  principals  secondary  (60.6%).  principals  active  most  district  (69.6%),  and  44  This  item  was  i n c l u d e d i n an attempt t o i d e n t i f y n a t u r a l  i n f o r m a t i o n l i n k e r s . I t would have been h e l p f u l to have some way to confirm  these  s e l f - r e p o r t s , perhaps i n the form of "When  you  need e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , what person do you go t o see?" The relatively  infrequent  dissemination  elementary and secondary support  reported  personnel  by  some o f t h e  i s of some  concern.  Attitude A t t i t u d e s c a l e as a hierarchy;. One purpose, f o r the  attitude  hierarchy  scale  posited  was by  to  further  Krathwohl  the i n v e s t i q a t i o n o f the  et  al's  taxonomy. F i f t e e n items were desiqned, of  the ' f i v e  developinq  affective  (1964)  with three items f o r each  major l e v e l s of the taxonomy; E x p l a n a t i o n s  level's and the items desiqned  of the  t o r e f l e c t them a r e i n Appendix C.  Each o f these s e t s o f t h r e e items was t r e a t e d as a s u b - t e s t of the whole  scale*  The  individual  total  computed  per  and  analyses*  The s e r i e s o f analyses  scores used  f o r each  were  as raw data i n the s c a l i n g  i s designed  a h i e r a r c h y e x i s t s , and i f i t does,  level  the  to d i s c o v e r whether  number  of  levels i t  includes. A 'pass-fail  1  c u t t i n g p o i n t was s e t a t nine f o r each l e v e l .  This d e c i s i o n was based on the u n d e r l y i n g design of the a t t i t u d e scale* negative moderate  On  the  four  point  scale,  l e v e l s of response, while  points  or strong p o s i t i v e responses.  9 at a l e v e l would c h a r a c t e r i z e  an  1  points 3  and 2 r e f l e c t e d and  4  indicated  A minimum t o t a l score o f  individual  who  scored  at  l e a s t 3 on a l l the items,  but not one with two 2's and a 4 . T h i s  cut-off  in  point  resulted  a  reasonable  range  of  marginal  45  freguencies  when  the  attitude  scores  were  analyzed  using  SPSS:GUTTMAN. The  steps of the analyses  reproducibilities Table  11. A t s t e p  according  to  difficult this  level,  they  levels,  4&3,  5,  permitted A final levels  3  certain  were  These  necessary  errors,  four  Using  levels  on  three-level  a for  Rep  =.90  as four were  orders*  scale  with  or higher  scalability.  a  sufficient  is a  There  frequencies, a  reproducibilities  was met i n t h e t h r e e - l e v e l  (Torgerson,  number  c a t e q o r i e s which c o n t a i n more n o n - e r r o r criteria  hierachically  are  t h a t c a n be used a s c h e c k s t o e n s u r e  range o f marginal item  to enter  1 and 2 r e v e r s e d  a  in  a n a l y s i s , Rep =.957. I n a n a l y s i s  condition  include:  individual  achieved  analysis.  o f Rep i s n o t s p u r i o u s l y h i g h  criteria  was  t h e most  levels  scales,  criteria  with  enter  o r d e r and t h e Rep=. 893-  f o r the next  then  to  were p e r m i t t e d  functioning  performed  (Guttman)  auxiliary  reasonable  levels  not  freely,  a n a l y s i s was  and  A Hep = .869  are given i n  forced  t h e taxonomy,  2, and 1, Rep=.934. I f t h e s e  to enter  that the value  these  4  were combined  cumulative  item  5, f i r s t .  5, 4S3, and 1&2. I n t h i s  primary  in  c o e f f i c i e n t s of  error)  were  and 4 r e v e r s e d t h e i r  3 and  intended,  placement  level  of  levels  When t h e same f i v e  levels  Since l e v e l s  1-proportion  one, a l l f i v e  their  analysis.  freely,  of  (Rep,* =  and t h e r e s u l t i n g  of  random  1962).  items, pattern  a of  o f .85 o r more, a n d than  error*  analysis*  Each o f  46  This series heirarchy the  of a n a l y s e s , while as  hypothesized  existence  of  a  i t d i d not confirm  a  five-level  i n K r ' a t h w o h l s taxonomy, d i d c o n f i r m ,  heirarchy  of  three  levels  of  attitude  development. T a b l e 11 R e s u l t s o f Guttman A n a l y s e s Step  # of levels  Definition Levels  5 4 3  5,4,3,2,1 5,4&3,2,1 5,4&3,2&1  1 2 3  Relationships total  between  score achieved  cross-tabulated respondents:  on  with  Position,  The  fifteen-item  analyses  Isolation,  were c o n d u c t e d scale  ranged  scale: used the  <40  ( 1 7 1 ) , 40-49  independent  Education, i n each  and  case.  with  (375). These  between the  371  of a t t i t u d e groups  were  a n a l y s e s and ANOVA's w i t h a t t i t u d e  Position.  administrators with  and  as  variable*  Attitude  information  was  to describe  i n three i n t e r v a l s  ( 4 9 1 ) , and >50  i n a l l the b i v a r i a t e  district  used  s c o r e s b e l o w 30 were added t o t h e 163 s c o r e s  50 and 59. T h i s r e s u l t e d  a)  scale  between 23 and 60.  30 and 39, and t h e f o u r s c o r e s o f 60 were merged between  items.. The  attitude  of the other items  s c o r e on t h e a t t i t u d e  eight  Rep. ,869 1934 .957  Experience,  Dissemination. Bivariate Total  of  A t t i t u d e and d e s c r i p t i v e  the each  of Attitude.Items  have  As  the  indicated most  in  positive  80.7% s c o r i n g above 50, and t h e r e s t  Table  12,  attitude to scoring i n  the  middle  positive scoring  range.  group  District  with  support p e r s o n n e l a r e t h e next  65.5%  in  most  t h e t o p c a t e g o r y and o n l y  4.5%  l e s s t h a n 40. Table  12  Cross-tabulation o f P o s i t i o n and A t t i t u d e : F r e g u e n c i e s and P e r c e n t a g e s Position  Attitude  S c o r e Range  Freguency per Category  <30  40-49  50-60  E l i Teachers Sec,Teachers S e c i D.Heads El.Principal Sec. P r i n c i p . E l * Support Sec.Support Dist.Admin. D i s t * Support  29.7 26.9 14. 1 12.4 8.7 10. 1 6. 1 4.5  50.4 52.7 55.7 49.5 54. 4 59.4 53.0 19,* 4 30*0  19.9 20.4 30. 2 38. 1 37.0 30.4 40.9 80*7 65.5  236 186 106 97 46 69 66 31 *200  % of T o t a l Freguencies  16.5 171  47.3 491  36*2 375  1037  and  Elementary attitude of  Approximately on  20%  the s c a l e *  respondents both  o f each  scored  had  more  more t h a n  50.  The  grouped  at  and  personnel  b)  a  Attitude  secondary  was  and  using the f i r s t  level,  and  one t h i r d  Chi-Sguare  and P o s i t i o n  positive  t e a c h e r s and 26.9%  the: attitude  categories,  the middle  than  on  less  scale*  t e a c h e r c a t e g o r y s c o r e d more t h a n  In; a l l s c h o o l - b a s e d  elementary  Attitude  secondary t e a c h e r s r e v e a l  t e a c h e r s s c o r e d below 40  22.8 17*9 10,12 9.3 4. 4 6.7 6.4' 3.0 19.3 100.0  t o i n f o r m a t i o n : 29,7% o f e l e m e n t a r y  secondary  Percent of Total N  130.61  for  half  but the p r i n c i p a l s a t secondary  o f t h e i r number who the  the  relationship  support scored between  (p<,001).  Experience. digit  the  about  50  Years  o f the a c t u a l  of  experience  number  was  of years o f  48  Experience. years, years  This resulted  20-29 were  produced  years,  i n f o u r c a t e g o r i e s : <10  and  >30  years,  10-19  y e a r s . The a c t u a l r a n g e o f t h e s e  1 t o 38, The b i v a r i a t e  analysis  of these  a Goodman and K r u s k a l s Gamma =.201 1  Table  two  factors  (p<.001).  13  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f E x p e r i e n c e and A t t i t u d e : F r e q u e n c i e s and P e r c e n t a g e s  <30  40-49  50-60  <10  20. 2  51.1  28.7  470  45.3  10-19  12.3  47.3  40.4  332  32.0  20-29  15.3  40.0  44.7  190  1813  30 +  13.3  40.0  46.7  45  4.4  % of Total Frequencies  16.5 171  47.3 491  36.2 375  1037  13  indicates  a  strong  a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n from than  10 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e  who  remain  slightly  in  more  the  move  100.0  to  t h a t of respondents to those  profession  positive  Ranqe  Percen of Total  Attitude  Table  Score  Frequency per Cateqory  Years of Experience  attitude  who  for  a  more  have  less  have 10-19 y e a r s .  Those  more t h a n  to information  who  positive  30 y e a r s h a v e a than  any  other  group* c) indicate  Attitude that  relationship  and there  Isolation. was  no  between A t t i t u d e and  Results  given  statistically Isolation*  i n Table  14  significant  49  Table  14  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f I s o l a t i o n and A t t i t u d e : F r e q u e n c i e s and P e r c e n t a g e s Sense of Isolation  <30  40-49  50-60  Not  19.3  47.4  33. 3  57  5.6  Somewhat  15. 4  55.6  29.0  162  16.0  Considerably  17.4  45,7  36.8  505  49.9  Seriously  14.2  46.0  39.8  289  28.5  % of Total Frequencies  16.3 165  47.5 481  36,2 367  1013  isolated  d) two  Attitude  Attitude  factors  was  s c o r e Range  and E d u c a t i o n . expected  to  (p<.001).  Table  information  increases  directly  education: with  75,0%  of  those  15  with  strong; indicates  with  strong  while  positive  only  23,9%  attitude. •  of  Gamma that  increasinq  between  these  =,;399  was  attitude-tolevel  of  a d o c t o r a t e and 55.4% o f t h o s e  a masters deqree s c o r e d i n the very  attitude,  Percent of Total N  100.0  The r e l a t i o n s h i p be  siqnificant  Frequency per Cateqory  those  p o s i t i v e : category without  a degree f e l t  of a  50  T a b l e 15 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f E d u c a t i o n and A t t i t u d e : F r e q u e n c i e s and P e r c e n t a g e s Attitude  S c o r e Eanqe  Frequency per Cateqory  Percent of Total N  Level of Education  <30  40-49  50-60  High  22. 1  54,. 0  23.9  113  11.1  19.6  50.6  29.8  627  61,4  269  26:3  School  Bachelors Masters  6.3  38.3  55. 4  Doctorate  8.3  16.7  75.0  12  47. 3 483  36.4 372  1021  16.3 166  % of Total Frequencies  1.2  100*0 —  e)  A t t i t u d e and D i s s e m i n a t i o n .  attitude  and  frequency  was  quite stronq  of  those  day,  who  67.8%  than  once  of askinq f o r o r q i v i n q 16  a  very  month,  strong  scored  in  —  —  »rf  between  indicates  attitude  that once a  towards  who seek o r p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n  43.7%  attitude to information.  positive  —  out information  a s k f o r o r g i v e o u t i n f o r m a t i o n more t h a n  while o f those a  relationship  (Gamma=,482, p<.001). T a b l e  have  information*  The  —  the lowest  less  category of  51  T a b l e 16 C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n o f D i s s e m i n a t i o n and A t t i t u d e : F r e q u e n c i e s and Percentages S c o r e Range  Frequency of Dissemination  Attitude <30  40-49  Less than  43. 7  47. 1  1/mon  25* 8  53.6  1/week  16.9  1/day More t h a n 1/day  1/mon  % of Total Frequencies  50-60  Frequency per Cateqory  9. 2  87  8.5  20.5  151  14.8  55.1  28.0  332  32.4  8.5  48.1  43.5  283  27.6  5. 3  26. 9  67.8  171  16.7  1.6. 2 166  47.5 487  36.2 371  1024  Information  Seeking  Percent of Total  100.0  Behavior  Purposes Rank O r d e r  o f P u r p o s e s . ' The  purposes  for  seeking  indicate  how  often  3=frequently) The  they  items  information (1=seldom  souqht  in this  questionnaire asked  or  never,  were d e v e l o p e d  an o p e n - e n d e d q u e s t i o n i n t h e p i l o t t h e means and r a n k  and  i n f o r m a t i o n f o r each  section  o r d e r of purposes  listed  study.  fifteen  respondents  to  2=sometimes,  purpose* from  Table  i n the f i n a l  responses t o 17  indicates  study*  52  Table P u r p o s e s : Means Bank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  17 and Bank  Order  Purpose  Mean  F i n d i n g New M a t e r i a l s D e v e l o p i n g New M a t e r i a l s P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Students with Problems C u r r i c u l u m Development awareness of Trends Evaluation F i n d i n g New s o u r c e s . E x p e r t s F a c t s f o r C l a s s r o o m Use Teaching Techniques Motivation D e c i s i o n Makinq Public Beaction C l a s s r o o m Management Writing Beports, A r t i c l e s  This  rank  charge of  2; 51 2.31 2.25 2. 21 2. 18 2. 13 2i 08 2.06 2.06 2. 05 2.01 1. 93 1 .86 1.77 1. 55  o r d e r i n g o f p u r p o s e s may  designing  in-service  be o f v a l u e  programs  for  community; I t would be s e n s i b l e t o a d m i n i s t e r particular  population  Position fifteen  For  a  similar In  on  designing Purjaoses..  p u r p o s e s ; were a n a l y z e d  variable; there  Effects  before  only  significant  one  purpose,  (p<.05)  a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d contrast  significant  (p<.001)  statistically performed* significant  to  the for  significant Scheffe's  with  an  this  educational guestion  to a  programs. In  the  pilot  p o s i t i o n as the "finding  relationship on t h e d a t a  pilot  t o those i n  study  a l l purposes.  new  study  independent  materials",  with  was  Position.  i n the f i n a l results, Table.  the  A  study*  P o s i t i o n was 18  gives  the  F - r a t i o s when a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e i s  pair-wise  d i f f e r e n c e s between  comparisons  position  means.  reveal  the  53  Table  18  E f f e c t o f P o s i t i o n on P u r p o s e s : Means, S i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o s and S i g n i f i c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s between Means F**  Purposes  1 1, T e a c h i n g techniques 2. F i n d i n g new materials 3. F a c t s f o r classroom 4, Awareness < of t r e n d s  Sig.Comp .  P o s i t i o n Means*** 2 3 4  11.0  2. 13  1.86  2. 16  2. 07  (2-4,1,3)  9.9  2. 53  2,54  2,60  2. 28  (4-1,2,3)  12. 0  2. 11  2.26  1.87  1. 95  (3-il,2) (4-2)  17. 1  1. 99  1 .99  2.36  2. 24  (1,2-3,4)  5. M o t i v a t i o n 5. 9 6. C u r r i c u l u m development 5. 1 7. D e v e l o p i n g new m a t e r i a l s: 4. 8  2. 10  1 .86  2. 07  2. 03  (2^-3,1)  2. 08'  2.15  2.24  2. 33  (1-4)  2. 32  2.39  2.35  2, 14  (4-3,2)  19. 8  2. 01  1,89  2. 17  2. 40  (2-3,4) ( 1 , 3 - 4)  16.5  1. 93  2. 10  2.29  1. 89  (4,1-2,3) (2-3)  18.6  2. 18  2.09  2.51  2. 24  (2,1,4-3)  13. 8  1. 87  1,76  2.05  2, 15  (2,1-3,4)  9.5  1. 87  1 .59  1.74  1, 91  (2-1,4)  12.7  1. 43  1 .44  1.68  1. 74  (1,2-3,4)  l  8, E v a l u a t i o n 9. F i n d i n g new s o u r c e s 10, P r o f e s s i o n a l development 11. D e c i s i o n making 12. C l a s s r o o m management 13. W r i t i n g re ports 14. S t u d e n t s with problem 15,. P u b l i c reaction  *  •  11.9  2. 36  2. 00  2.24  2. 27  (2-3,4,1)  29. 5  1. 71  1.67  2.00  2. 22  ( 2 , 1 - 3 , 4 ) ( 3 - 4)  •Within each s e t o f p a r e n t h e s e s , e a c h p o s i t i o n number on t h e l e f t s i d e o f t h e dash i s significantly different from each position on t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e d a s h . A l l s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) pair-wise comparisons are reported. A l l comparisons are ordered f r o m l o w e r means t o h i g h e r means; * * F - r a t i o s r e p o r t e d a r e a l l s i g n i f i c a n t , p<001. *** P o s i t i o n s a r e 1. E l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s and s u p p o r t p e r s o n n e l , 2; S e c o n d a r y t e a c h e r s and d e p a r t m e n t h e a d s , 3. Elementary and secondary principals and d i s t r i c t administrators, and 4. D i s t r i c t and s e c o n d a r y s u p p o r t p e r s o n n e l ; This table between  the  indicates  four  the  position  complexity categories  of  the  relationship  and  the  purposes f o r  54  seeking  information*  Nearly  every  purpose  o r d e r i n g o f means and p a t t e r n o f s i q n i f i c a n t  reveals  a  unique  comparisons.  Sources  Rank their  Order  of Sources*  frequency  4=frequently)  of of  use  R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e  (1 = n e v e r ,  thirteen  2=rarely*  possible  sources  3=sometimes, of  educational  information. Table Sources: Source  and Rank  Mean  1. W o r k s h o p s , c o u r s e s seminars 2. C o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h colleaques 3. N o t e s , f i l e s , b o o k s i n my o f f i c e 4. a b s t r a c t s and bibliographies 5. S c h o o l o r d i s t r i c t libraries 6. E d u c a t i o n a l journals 7. E x p e r t s from outside 8. Books o r textbooks 9,. C o n v e n t i o n s i or meetings 10. P u b l i c o r u n i v e r s i t y libr aries 11. Computer o r r e t r i e v a l systems 12,. R e s e a r c h r e p o r t s dissertations 13. C u r r i c u l u m materials * * i t e m was •two i t e m s  Means  19 Orders  Sank O r d e r s i n two s t u d i e s Hood (of 18) FinalTof13)  2. 65  13  6  3,* 50  1  1  3.32  6 + 2*  2.23  18  10  2.69  10  5  2. 64  5  7  2.30  8  9  3.21  14  3  2.45  12  8  2.00  17  11  1. 30  **  13  1. 80  **  12  2.79  15  4  not i n c l u d e d i n the study were merged f o r f i n a l s t u d y  2  55  Table study  19 r e c o r d s t h e mean f o r  and  Blackwell  the  of Position  source  variable* was  was  multiple comparisons differences  the  i n both  present  t h e Hood a n d  study.  of  variance  of  P o s i t i o n as t h e independent  sources  significant  in  Analysis  using  F o r each o f t h e e l e v e n  item  items  on S o u r c e s .  performed  statistically  i n which  (p<.05),  the  F  value  t h e S c h e f f e method o f  was a p p l i e d t o i d e n t i f y  where  significant  occurred.  Table groups,  order of these  (1976) M a r k e t S t u d y a n d t h i s  Effects each  rank  each  20  the  gives  F-ratio  the and  means the  f o r each  of the.four  significant  contrasts  position on  each  source. For  four  secondary) support  are  the  different  groups,.  In  less  use  sources, secondary  least  secondary  sources,  computer r e t r i e v a l  significantly  thirteen  these  very  personnel  conventions, make  of  frequent  users,  teachers  from each and of  teachers  the  (elementary  administrative  and and  o f these c a s e s — - j o u r n a l s , research  the  reports—teachers  source.  and  In eight of the  department  heads  are  o n l y f o r "books and t e x t b o o k s " a r e  t e a c h e r s the.most f r e q u e n t  users  of a  source*  56  Table  20  E f f e c t s o f P o s i t i o n on S o u r c e s : Means* F - r a t i o s and Means C o m p a r i s i o n s Sources 1  2  1.Workshops, courses 2. 63 2.Conversations with c o l l e a g 3. 50 3. B o o k s , f i l e s i n my o f f i c e 3. 18 4 * A b s t r a c t s and bibliography 1. 99 5.School,dist. libraries 3. 02 6.Educational journals 2. 47 7.Experts outside 2. 15 8, T e x t b o o k s , 3. 23 books 9.Conventions, meetings 2. 31 10.Public or 0nivi l i b r a r y 2. 00 11.Computer retrieval 1. 13 12*Research, 1. 62 theses 13.Curriculum materials 3. 01  Positions*** 3  F  Comparisons  4  2.46  2, 75  2. 69  8.40**  (2-1,4,3)  3,35  3, 50  3. 47  2.64**  3. 29  3. 34  3. 18  2.0 9  2, 32  2. 15  6.13**  2, 53  2. 55  2. 41  23.89**  (4,2,3-1)  2*40  2. 92  2. 74  23.12**  (2,1-4,3)  2,06  2, 53  2. 36  17.91**  (2-4,3) (1- 3)  3,4 0  3. 08  2, 91  14. 78**  (4-1,2) (3- 2)  2. 26  2. 63  2. 56  15.69**  (2,1-4,3)  U90  2; 02  1. 99  1,21  1. 45  1. 39  15.73**  (1,2-4,3)  1,60  2. 03  1, 94  21.87**  (2,1-4,3)  2,58  2. 64  2. 87  17.21**  (2,3-4,1)  (1,2-3)  *** P o s i t i o n s a r e 1. E l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s and s u p p o r t personnel, 2. Secondary t e a c h e r s and department heads, 3. S c h o o l and district a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 4. District and secondary support personnel. ** p<.001  Administrators  (elementary,  secondary  most f r e q u e n t u s e r s o f t e n o f t h e t h i r t e e n  and d i s t r i c t ) sources.  are the  57  Effects Isolation  of I s o l a t i o n  a  on S o u r c e s . F o r  significant  (p<.05)  factor;  applied,  only  comparison  tests  significant  comparisons  significant  contrast  was  isolated  those  d i d not f e e l  scores  and  were  who  indicated  that  between  means.  between t h o s e  i n each  r e p o r t e d more f r e q u e n t use  who  "considerably" isolated;  Effects was  o f E d u c a t i o n on  performed  variable, Education the  on  eight was  with  of  F-ratios  originally  h i g h e s t earned  so t h i s  category  with  degree  Only  The  first  four  and  all  had  and  and  and  r e p o r t s the e i g h t  the s i g n i f i c a n t  Scheffe's test  was  applied.  felt  1 1  mean  "extremely"  than  as  the  groups  degree,  group  did  those  had  (p<.05). to  a doctorate,  c a t e g o r y . Group 1 group  files 8—  with  2  includes  post-graduate and  i n my  seminars,  office  b o o k s and  probabilities  sources  independent  accordinq  3 i s the  source  and  the  a l l ; The  sources—workshops  F - r a t i o s o f l e s s t h a n 2.0  p=,05. T a b l e 21 ratios  bibliographies-—  case  siqnificant  four  c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h c o l l e a g u e s , n o t e s and abstracts  who  12 r e s p o n d e n t s  university  a b a c h e l o r ' s degree;  group;  at  combined w i t h t h e m a s t e r s  w i t h no  had  When a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  were  into  sources  f e l t "considerably  of s o u r c e s  Education  divided  degree.  was  i n c l u d e s a l l those those  the  was  Scheffe's  each  isolated  Sources.  sources  three  who  sources  When  In  case those  isolated felt  only f o u r  texts—  g r e a t e r than  significant  p a i r - w i s e comparisons  and  F-  r e v e a l e d when  58  T a b l e 21 Effects Significant "  ——  o f E d u c a t i o n on S o u r c e s : F - r a t i o s and Mean C o m p a r i s o n s  ——-•———  Source  1  ———  — — n  Education***  .  2  5. S c h o o l o r d i s t r i c t libraries 2.93 6. E d u c a t i o n a l 2. 57 journals 7. E x p e r t s outside 2. 19 9. C o n v e n t i o n s 2.27 meetings 10* U n i v e r s i t y 1.84 or p u b l i l i b s . 11. Computer 1. 12 retrieval 12. R e s e a r c h o r 1. 64 theses 13. C u r r i c u l u m 3.00 materials  ——  F  3  2*71  2,:44  13.75**  (3-2,1)  2.51  2, 89  20.24**  (2,1-3)  2.20  2. 41  6.21*  2.39  2, 55  6,57*  (1,2-3)  1,193  2. 11  5.65*  (1,2-3)  1.21  1. 49  25.?5**  (1,2-3)  1.68  2. 03  21.47**  (1,2-3)  2.78  2. 64  7.55**  (3,2-1)  *** E d u c a t i o n  l e v e l s a r e 1.No d e g r e e , 2. B a c h e l o r ' s 3. M a s t e r s ' d e g r e e o r d o c t o r a t e . ** p<.001 * p<,05  The  post-graduate  doctorates,  are  group, t h o s e  significantly  and f o r f i v e  most  of  users  with  degree,  master's  different  groups i n s i x s o u r c e s , frequent  —  Sig,Comparisons  of those  from  s c h o o l o r d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s a r e used  least  degrees  the  s i x , they  the sources. Curriculum by t h i s  an  or  o t h e r two are.  the  m a t e r i a l s and group.  59  Effects  of  Experience  on  Sources.  Experience  little  power i n e x p l a i n i n g v a r i a n c e i n S o u r c e s ;  three  sources  significant  were s i g n i f i c a n t  pairwise comparisons  was  a p p l i e d , ; The  significant  of  educational  journals,  between t h o s e with  with  more t h a n  educators  20  learn  years  about  Effects  of  performed  on  independent  variable;  significant  10  of  years  j o u r n a l s and  on  sources  22  test  f o r the  use  contrast and  both  was  groups  indicates use  no  that  of them  as  experience.  Sources,. using  For ten o f the  A n a l y s i s of  variance  Dissemination  as  sources. Dissemination was  the was  applied to a l l sources  F-ratios,  g i v e s t h e means o f  of D i s s e m i n a t i o n ,  This  increase their  professional  13  experience  was  for  of t h e s e  when S c h e f f e ' s  significant  experience;  (p<.05)..The S c h e f f e t e s t  with s i g n i f i c a n t Table  the  very  F-ratios  f o r two  p a i r w i s e comparison  Dissemination the  were f o u n d  and  l e s s than  a function of i n c r e a s i n g  was  (p<.05), b u t  The  had  the  F-ratios,  each s o u r c e and  the  f o r the  significant  five  levels  pair-wise  comparisons. In from  all  those  disseminate  the  who  significant disseminate  i t most*  comparisons, information  g r o u p means i n c r e a s e least  to  those  who  60  Table  22  E f f e c t s o f D i s s e m i n a t i o n on S o u r c e s : Means, F - s c o r e s and S i g n i f i c a n t C o m p a r i s o n s Source  Dissemination Frequency*** 4 5 1 2 3  1.Workshops, seminars 2. 51 2,Conversations with 3. 00 colleagues 3.Notes,files i n 3. 14 my o f f i c e 4.Abstracts, b i b l i o g r a p h i e s 1. 80 5.District,school 2. 45 libraries 6.Educational journals 2. 09 7.Experts outside 2. 05 8.Textbooks 3. 10 or books 9,Conventions 2. 21 i o r meetings 10,i U n i v e r s i t y , p u b . libraries i 1. 69 11.Computer ! retrieval 1. 06 1 2 . R e s e a r c h and 1. 38 theses 13.Curriculum materials 2. 69  F  Sig.Comps.  2. 63  2, 59  2. 61  2.78  2- 9 9 *  3, 31  3. 47  3. 57  3,60  3. 21  3. 29  3. 23  3.37  2. 03  2. 15  2. 17  2.34  2. 68  2. 70  2. 70  2.64  2. 46  2. 54  2. 71  3.02  22. 6 2 * * ( 1 - 2 3 4 - 5 )  2, 09  2. 14  2. 40  2.53  11. 0 4 * * ( 1 2 3 - 4 5 )  3. 25  3,. 28  3. 09  3.14  14. 0 2 * * (1-2345) (2-45) 5. 6 8 * * ( 1 - 3 4 5 ) (2-5)  2. 7 5 * -  2. 31  2. 36  2. 45  2.70  8. 8 8 * * (1234-5)  1. 97  2. 01  2. 02  2,01  2. 82*  1. 19  1. 21  1. 36  1. 47  1, 70  1. 67  1. 84  2. 15  2. 78  2. 77  2. 78  2. 78  9. 7 6 * * ( 1 2 3 - 5 ) (1-4) 19. 0 1 * * ( 1 - 2 3 - 5 ) (1-4)  *** D i s s e m i n a t i o n g r o u p s a r e : 1. Les.s t h a n once a month, 2; Once a month, 3. Once a week, 4. Once a d a y , and 5. More t h a n o n c e a day. ** p<. 001 * p<.05 E f f e c t s o f A t t i t u d e on S o u r c e s ; The r e s u l t s o f a n a l y s i s variance the  w i t h S o u r c e s as t h e dependent v a r i a b l e and A t t i t u d e  i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e were s i g n i f i c a n t  of as  (p<.05) f o r t e n o f t h e  t h i r t e e n s o u r c e s . T a b l e 23 r e p o r t s t h e s e r e s u l t s .  61  T a b l e 23 E f f e c t s o f A t t i t u d e on S o u r c e s : Means, F - r a t i o s and S i g n i f i c a n t C o m p a r i s o n s Sources  Attitude Intervals***  F Sig*Comps.  3 1.Workshops and seminars 2.Conversations with colleagues 3.Notes, f i l e s i n my o f f i c e 4 . A b s t r a c t s and bibliographies 5 , D i s t r i c t or school |libraries 6;Educational journals 7.Experts outside 8-Textbooks o r books 9.Conventions or meetings 10.University or public libraries 11.Computer retrieval 12.Besearch or theses 13.Curriculum mat e r i a l s  4  5  2. 46  2. 56  2. 78  16; 36**  (3,4-5)  3. 24  3. 45  3. 55  10, 63**  (3-4,5)  3. 05  3. 24  3. 36  7. 5 9 * *  1. 85  2. 02  2. 41  30. 15**  (3,4-5)  2. 62  2. 65  2. 69  2. 02  2. 51  3. 02  105. 5 1 * *  (3-4-5)  1. 85  2. 15  2. 58  58. 19**  (3-4-5)  3. 15  3. 16  3. 23  2,; 22  2,i 36  2. 59  16. 47**  (3,4-5)  1. 69  1. 95  2. 14  16. 91 **  (3-4-5)  1, 11  1. 22  1. 43  19. 0 5 * *  (3,4-5)  1. 35  tl. 69  2. 07  59. 90**  (3-4-5)  2. 70  2, 74  2. 84  ***Attitude i n t e r v a l s are 3.scores between 40 and 49, and 5 . s c o r e s ** p<;001  Multiple  Regression  of  performed  to  between between  Sources^  analyses  were  personal  characteristics  freguency  o f use o f t h e t h i r t e e n  sources  15 and 3 9 , 50 and 60A  Stepwise  investigate  contributed  i  to  how the  (3-5)  4.scores  regression  much e a c h o f t h e variance  of information.  of  62  The  personal  independent order:  characteristics  variables  1.  were f o r c e d  Experience,  Isolation/Dissemination, Table R  for  2  in  E  2  24  o f the  derived  from  correlations provided  i n Appendix  significance  experience  does  variance educational  F-ratios  the  thirteen  curriculum  training  a  use  journals,  sources  and  The  highly of  sources of  increase an  Tables  error of  the  respondents  most of  those use  are  or  use  with  increases  does  of  not  which of  the  libraries,  dissertations*  for  eight  district  of  least  level  the  libraries  and  educational  sources, f o r the s i x as  the  change  for  part  district  the  the  (3 a t p<.01, 2 a t  sources  predictor  of the  amounts  significant  (p<.01). F o r s c h o o l and  frequency  use  three  school  a significant  the  in  f a c t o r i n each o f  r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s and  materials,  make  increase  using  models  first  the frequency  experience*  was  4,  f o r the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  of the t h i r t e e n  the  Education  Position,  of  were c a l c u l a t e d  was  explain  are  following  G.  i n only f i v e  of  the  3.  levels  full-rank  and  Experience  years  sources  in  as  Attitude.  the  p<.05). F o r e i g h t s o u r c e s  for  t h a t were used  regressions, i t explained significant  variance  across  enter  Education,  variables  of sources  Although multiple  5,  to  t h i r t e e n sources.  f o r each  term  2.  i n d i c a t e s the  each o f the  of respondents  of  other  education  increases* Experience were  forced  to  and  Education  enter  are  before  both  related  Position  so  to Position. t h a t any  They  variance  63  accounted by  f o r by  the  Position  previously  would  entered  factor,  orthogonal  contrasts:  C1  the  (including  elementary  (including  personnel; secondary  support  with  contrasts  t e a c h e r s ; and  administrators  and  (b)  was  personnel)  heads)  combined  C2  coding  C3  and  district  and  All  t h r e e : c o n t r a s t s were e n t e r e d  that  the  most s i g n i f i c a n t  is  a  three  teachers  and  teachers  secondary  district and  (a)  and  support  teachers  district  at the  and  and  support  enter  (b)  school  personnel.  same p r i o r i t y  would  school  secondary  secondary  contrast  Position  (a) e l e m e n t a r y  elementary  contrasts  shared  used t o p r o v i d e  (b)  district (a)  variance  Because  c o n t r a s t between  department  administrators  i n c l u d e the  factors.  categorical  is  not  level  so  in  the  accounted  for  first  analysis: Although some.of t h e  Experience  for  for  of those,  eleven  Dissemination Dissemination, still  of the  C2 and  Isolation  information.  sources,  and  C3  In  each  only  case the  Isolation one  of these  already  a significant  sources;  after  amount those  most  was was  was  significant  at the  next  three other  of who  the asked  freguent users  significant at  C1  predictor  f o r three;  were e n t e r e d  for a significant  sources;  had  still  thirteen  f o r s i x , and  e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n are of  was  even t h o u g h i t e n t e r e d  accounted  eleven  Education  variance. Position  (p<:01) nine  and  p<-01.  for  level.  factors*  variance  for  f o r or  gave  of only  sources three  Table  2<i  M u l t i p l e R e q t e s s i o n Sunoary T a b l e o f S i g n i f i c a n c e T u i r t e o n s o u r c e s by Six P e r s o n a l F a c t D r s . Source of Variance  1 2 3 Wrksh. Cnver. O f f i c e  Experience  Sources of Information U 5 6 7 8 A b s t r . S . L i b . E d . J r . -Expert T e x t s  .05  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .0 1  .01  .05  Education Position  .0 1  Con. 1  .01  Con. 2  .05  .01  .0 1  Con. 3 DisseainatiDU  .05 .01  .01  .05  .01  Isolation  9 10 11 Coven. P . L i b . C n p t r .  12 13 Resr;h " a r c .  .05  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .3 1  .01  .01  .01  .31  .05  .01  .05  .01 .01  .0 1 .01  .01  .05  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  .05  Attitude  .01  .01  .01  .31  .01  .01  .31  .0 1  .01  .01  .01  .01  .01  CUB.  .065  .0b6  .035  .006  .102  .250  . 150  .060  .071  .055  .092  . 160  .070  n*  65  The  last  analyses  factor  i t was  t o be e n t e r e d  known  a l l other  with  significant analyses  predictor it  into scores  attitude  It  is  the  source  i s  6,  personal  extreme, related  of  not  include  A t t i t u d e was a  attitude,  test  had  been  In t h e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s t h e  used.  information  scale  o f use o f s o u r c e s ,  interest  and  is  a  significant  and t h e c o n s t r u c t t h a t  different  from  a l l the other  note  f a c t o r a t each l e v e l use  of  siqnificantly  Analysis  with  extraction,  to  which  sources  analyses.  are  The f r e q u e n c y  'educational journals', i s s i q n i f i c a n t l y  intercdrrelated  they  levels.  e x p l a i n e d by t h e s e  the  Factor  and  the.specific  f o r a l l sources. I n the e a r l i e r  s c o r e s on t h e  separate  (p<*05) and a t t i t u d e  solution  of this.  Attitude  characteristics.  •extensively' of  to  of frequency  measures  personal  were  holding  the equation,  In s p i t e  (p<.01)  three  By  previous  to a l l other  f o r by A t t i t u d e would  factors-  the continuous  individual  The  other  predictor  categorized  Isolation*  f a c t o r s had e n t e r e d  amount o f v a r i a n c e a c c o u n t e d that shared  From  t h a t A t t i t u d e was r e l a t e d  personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s except until  was A t t i t u d e .  'files only  and to  of  iterations,  related to  At t h e  other  i n my own o f f i c e * i s  experience  Sources., - The analyzed  and  dissemination  usinq  thirteen a  sources  principal  an e i g e n v a l u e = 1 . 0 c r i t e r i o n  and v a r i m a x r o t a t i o n ,  sources.: T a b l e  notes  o f use  (p<,01).  and f a c t o r  account  of the a n a l y s i s *  most  Three f a c t o r s  were  factor  for factor  were e x t r a c t e d ,  f o r 48,9% o f t h e c o v a r i a n c e s among t h e t h i r t e e n  25 g i v e s t h e r o t a t e d f a c t o r  loadings;.  66  Table Rotated  25  Factor Loadings*  Source  2. 3. 4,4  5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ilO. 11. 12, 13.  Workshops, c o u r s e s seminars C o n v e r s a t i o n s with colleagues Notes,files,books i n my o f f i c e Abstracts,indexes, booklists School or d i s t r i c t libraries Educational journals Experts outside district Textbooks or books C o n v e n t i o n s or meetings U n i v e r s i t y or p u b l i c libraries Computer retrieval Research r e p o r t s or dissertations Curriculum materials  Explained * Decimals  Factor  variance  III  03  08  67  39  05  26  54  10  03  40  45  -03  54  17  -09  23  42  24  07  34  38  60  06  -01  02  17  69  25  45  07  01  61  09  10  70  20  40  11  18  25.4%  13,4%  10.1%  omitted.  I . C l o s e a t hand, t r a d i t i o n a l  identified  with  the  8.  Books and  parentheses): books  in  my  (.54);  13.  Curriculum  colleagues bibliographies sources.  Sources  Factors II  I il.  of  office  (.39); (.40).  following  items  textbooks  (-54); materials  5.  (.40);  are  This  (factor  (.60) ;  School  Abstracts, These  sources.  3.  and 2.  factor  is  loadings  in  Notes,  district  libraries  Conversations  indexes, traditional,  files,  booklists  with and  school-based  67  Factor had  II..  two  Formal  very  strong  dissertations (.61),  and  libraries  four  and  4.  print  (.69); 1.  E x p e r t s o u t s i d e my  factor  loaded  Rank  the  of  This  importance,  and  their  rank  and  the f i n a l  and  Experts  reflects  on two  the  Conventions  or  (*67); and  7,.  (.38). strongly  factors,  (>.50)  on  one  t h e o t h e r two*  Five  and  one,  educational  on a l l t h r e e .  Sources  of  in  Characteristics.  of  they  were  sources  and  the  choosing  little  Table  26  and  sources they  importance,  asked  to  importance to  were r a t e d 3=  respondents  t h e Hood and  of  as b e i n g  those Eleven  1=of  no  and  4=  g u i t e important,  Blackwell  had  consider  use.  gives the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  order i n both study.  After  used,  were l i s t e d  2=of  important.  lists  includes less  factor  (<.20) o r n e g a t i v e l y on  characteristics  characteristics  very  (.34). T h i s . f a c t o r  s c h o o l or d i s t r i c t  sources they  characteristics  university  book  s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n : 9.  moderately  Order  identified  or  and  systems  E d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s (.34); 7.  moderately  Character!sties  retrieval  indexes,  factor  reports  Workshops, c o u r s e s o r s e m i n a r s  very,low  sources loaded  the  Public  of the eleven sources loaded  and  journals,  10.  interpersonal.  traditional in-service  Eight  or  This  sources*  Factor I I I ^ Organized  meetings  Besearch  Abstracts,  (.45); 6.  accessible.  Computer  ones:  school or d i s t r i c t  accessible  12.  11.  moderate  (.45);  my  sources, l e s s  items:  (.70);  bibliographies outside  print  their  means  (1976)  study  68  T a b l e 26 Characteristics:  11. 7. 1. i 10. 8.  Hood  Authoritative,accurate. and o b j e c t i v e I s l i k e l y t o have i n f o r m a t i o n I need Responsive t o my p r o b l e m I s n e a r a t hand and usually available I s c o m p l e t e , and comprehensive Keeps me aware o f new d e v e l o p m e n t s  2. I s e a s y t o use 4. V a r i e t y o f v i e w p o i n t s , or d i s c u s s i o n 6. L e a d s t o o t h e r sources 5, A c c e s s w i t h o u t i i n v o l v i n g others 9* I s f r e e o r ; inexpensive ;  * two i t e m s i s HOod s t u d y ** i t e m n o t i n t h e s t u d y ;  The  mean  characteristics  Rank O r d e r s  Mean  Characteristics 3.  Means and  levels  inexpensive"  3.58  1  2  3.49  3  3  3. 46  2  4  7+13*  3.44  6  6  3.22  4  7  3. 13  8+11*  8  2.86  10  9  2.56  **  10  2.50  14  11  combined t o one.  of  responses  on t h e s c a l e *  as the l e a s t important  access  indicated  s e e n as a p r o b l e m  The  a human  Only  three  ranking  of  "free  or  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c may i n d i c a t e services.  interceder,  by most i n f o r m a t i o n  seekers,  that a l l  3, and none was below  without i n v o l v i n g others"  seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t  5  3. 34  a w i l l i n g n e s s t o pay f o r i n f o r m a t i o n "provides  11)  1  9+15*  are important t o information  the neutral, point  (of  •  3.58  o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had means l e s s t h a n 2.5,  Rank O r d e r ( o f 14) Final  The  rated  a  seekers.  fact  second  "linker",  that lowest  i s not  69 f  Effects significant  of  Position  on  Characteristics*  important  f o r elementary  inexpensive".  and five  was l e a s t important more important other  (p<.Q5),  comparisons of  the  were  three  available" elementary  f o r elementary  for  two  other  and  of  found  support  administrators;  low  and  the  these  secondary F-ratios  no  teachers*  were  For  significant  significant  pair-wise  when S c h e f f e ' s t e s t was a p p l i e d * i n two  cases,  " i s easy  " i s near  to  t e a c h e r s and support  s c h o o l and d i s t r i c t  was  t o s c h o o l and d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,  characteristics  but  Awareness  teachers and elementary  personnel, and most important f o r d i s t r i c t cost  was  (p<.001) f o r two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : "keeps me aware o f  new developments" and " i s f r e e or least  Position  use",  at  were  hand most  and  usually  important  to  personnel and l e a s t important to  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s while f o r " i s  authoritative,  a c c u r a t e , r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e " the p o s i t i o n s were reversed*  Effects significantly  of  Attitude  (p<.001)  characteristics*  on  related  Characteristics* to  eight  of  A t t i t u d e : was the  eleven  Table 27 g i v e s the means by the t h r e e a t t i t u d e  groups, the s i g n i f i c a n t F-scores  and  the  significant  c o n t r a s t s between means as i d e n t i f i e d by S c h e f f e ' s t e s t .  (p<.05)  70  Table  27  E f f e c t s o f a t t i t u d e on C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Means, F - r a t i o s and S i g n i f i c a n t C o m p a r i s o n s Characteristics  Attitude Intervals* 4 5 3  1-Near a t hand, available  3.  F  Sig.Comps.  46  3,. 49  3. 42  3. 26 2,; E a s y t o use 3.Authoritative, reliable,objective 3. 41 4.Variety of viewpoints or discussion 2. 87 5.Access without involving others 2. 60 6*Leads t o o t h e r 2. 60 sources 7,Responsive t o imy p r o b l e m 3. 33 8,:Awareness o f new 3. 01 developments 9.1s f r e e o r inexpensive 2. 67 0.Complete, u p - t o - d a t e comprehensive 3. 23  3. 26  3. 16  3. 53  3. 73  12; 3 1 * *  (3,4-5)  3. 07  3. 33  19. 22**  (3-4-5)  2, 55  2. 56  2. 82  3. 05  17. 29**  (3-4-5)  3. 45  3. 61  9,. 62**  (3,4-5)  3. 27  3. 61  48.  2. 59  2. 29  12. 60**  (5-4,3)  3. 41  3. 58  12. 15**  (3-4-5)  3, 54  3. 68  7, 15**  (3,4-5)  3. 45  need 11.1s i n f ol ri mk ae t l yi o nt o I have  * A t t i t u d e i n t e r v a l s a r e 3. S c o r e s f r o m 40 t o 49, and 5. S c o r e s f r o m 50 t o 60. ** p<.01 In  a l l but  one  t h o s e whose a t t i t u d e the  73**  15 t o 39,  4.  (3-4-5)  Scores from  of the c a s e s with s i g n i f i c a n t  to information  score  was  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s l e a s t i m p o r t a n t . The  less  contrasts,  t h a n 40  exception  was  rated "free  I  or  inexpensive",  significant attitude groups of  where t h e o r d e r  contrasts*  scale  was  the  was  group  significantly  reversed. In a l l cases with scoring different  50  o r more on  from  both  the  other  i n t h e i r assessment of the importance o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  sources;  Problems Rank O r d e r o f P r o b l e m s ;  This section  analyzes  the  problems  71  faced  by  Only  "finding  real  educators  the  guickly there  the  i s some c o n c e r n 28  gives  of  the  and  using  only on  second  2 3 4  the  Financial costs Lack o f q u a l i f i e d help to locate information Making i n f o r m a t i o n u n d e r s t o o d by o t h e r s Resolving differences between r e p o r t s Knowing how t o use i n d e x e s , ERIC  comparisons  means i n t h i s  others"  and  teachers  and  secondary  For  study  and  of  the  28 Hank  Order  2.43 2-35 2. 16  Position  2.16 2.16 2,05 il.99 1.99 1.72  on  Problems..  Only  two  (p<.05) when P o s i t i o n and  b o t h , "making  information  department heads r e p o r t e d district  support  the  Problems  understandable  " r e s o l v i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between r e p o r t s " ,  and  is  2,i 94  were s i g n i f i c a n t  were compared*  that  when i n f o r m a t i o n  suitable.sources  of  than  information  mean, w h i c h s u g g e s t s  F i n d i n g time to look f o r o r read' i n f o r m a t i o n Getting information g u i c k l y enough Getting up-to-date material Understanding research r e p o r t s and s t a t i s t i c s  Effects  higher  a  Means  6 7  10  to present  "Getting  Problems  Locating  9  mean  information.  means.  5  8  scale.  problems,  seemed  a  of r e t r i e v a l  P r o b l e m s : Means and  1  with  highest  f o r speed the  item  the  Table  Hank  educational  for information"  the  point  enough" had  rank o r d e r  look  i t was  neutral  sought. Table the  time t o  problem, as  2.5,  i n seeking  least  personnel  to  secondary  difficulty reported  and a  72  significantly teacher  higher  group i s the  the  secondary  try  to p r o v i d e  locate.for  slightly  was  one  and  t h a t u s e s most s o u r c e s  of  these  Attitude  support  "locating  results on  significant  suitable  and  significantly who  those  with means  open-ended  40  who  do  not  surprising.  A t t i t u d e proved  which asked  the  only  t o use  a  attitude.  total  (indicating on  three  reports  the  attitude  for a  posed  personal  know-how". Though some  less  or  ERIC,  statistical  score  >50  have  difficulty)  than  scale*  on  the  last  statement  : "assuminq u n r e s t r i c t e d  unrealistic  t o o t h f a i r y ! M ) , 673  a  problems—  indexes,  individuals  (one  replied,  respondents,  page o f  of an  encourage b o l d t h i n k i n g , the  phrase  t o be  System^  was  technical  were  for  with  research  with  the  "ideal"  question  was  f i n a n c i n g and  felt  that  these  "I don't b e l i e v e i n  more t h a n  half,  did  reply  question,;  This  item  services  especially the  were n o t  "knowing how  question  s y s t e m . To  assumptions  ones  test  qualified  the  are.the  since  F - r a t i o s (p<.05). When S c h e f f e ' s  comparisons,  s c o r e d below  information  and  the  sources",  lower  questionnaire  to the  least,  personnel  Problems.  Your " i d e a l ^ An  secondary  half  "understanding  analyses"—did  the  the  b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r of p r o b l e m i m p o r t a n c e  a p p l i e d to these  those  Since  the e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n the t e a c h e r s  having  etc;",  of d i f f i c u l t y .  district  themselves,  Effects  items  level  any  was and  i n c l u d e d so t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s sources  items  that  t h a t had  they  not  q u e s t i o n n a i r e . R e s p o n s e s from  perceive  could as  valuable,  been i n c l u d e d i n t h e  the  first  two  hundred  mention  rest  of  returned  73  questionnaires  were l i s t e d  categories  was  using  categories  the  developed.  Twenty-seven  "satisfied"  f o r those  the  information  list  and  each c a t e g o r y  an  All  empirically-derived responses  developed  required.  the  and  who  system  and  categories  were  i t existed  number o f r e s p o n d e n t s are  adding  s t a t e d that they as  given i n Table Table  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  were  now  ones  satisfied  in their  areas.  with The  system i n c l u d e d  System # of  are  when  including  29  Computer r e t r i e v a l a n d / o r ERIC Improved d i s t r i c t l i b r a r i e s Improved s c h o o l l i b r a r i e s Time t o seek and use i n f o r m a t i o n C o u r s e s , workshops Information personnel i n d i s t r i c t C o n s u l t a n t s (experts) Telephone access to i n f o r m a t i o n TV o r v i d e o t a p e s Information personnel i n school O n i v e r s i t y involvement Conferences or meetings C o l l e c t i o n s of m a t e r i a l s Personal i n f o r m a t i o n seeker Better access to photocopiers Provincial clearinghouse Indexes of m a t e r i a l s a v a i l a b l e A c c e s s t o more m a g a z i n e s and j o u r n a l s Money f o r t r a v e l , b o o k s V i s i t s to other t e a c h e r s .. Provincial coordination of service L i s t of experts Evaluation of materials P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n involvement Condensed r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s Improved t e x t b o o k s with t h i n g s as they  used,  of  tabulated  29.  Category  Satisfied  new  whose " i d e a l "  R e s p o n s e s t o Your " i d e a l " Rank  were t h e n  set  responses  204 136 115 108 90 79 65 57 57 52 45 30 29 26 24 24 24 22 20 18 15 11 7 7 6 1 17  74  As  the  totals  improvement o f than  30%  retrieval  indicate, already  many  existing  referred  to  of  the  new  the  respondents  libraries  "computers",  systems" i n t h e i r  awareness  of  responses.  technologies  (251  out  "ERIC", There  and  wanted  of 6 7 3 ) . or  More  "automated  seemed  to  be  an  a d e s i r e t o make use  of  them. The fails  list to  of categories reflect  the  with  the  concern  r e s p o n d e n t s : More  than  100  suggestions,  also  of t h e i r  but  incompetence of d i s t r i c t  corresponding expressed  wrote  full  by  many  pages,  the  of  the  just  of  i s s u e s as  the  teachers  and  not  c o n c e r n f o r such  personnel,  freguencies  apathy of  i the  lack  of  complained  of teacher  provide  input  arts  music  from  and  others  indicated  understanding skepticism,  regarding teachers doing  of  the  new  administrators. cynicism  materials  revealed  and  or  same k i n d  of  sense,  work. Many o f  a r e a l j d e s i r e f o r more i n f o r m a t i o n  frustration  reluctance  services;  a profound  and  Librarians to  industrial  of  isolation  the  responses  a real  sense  of  in getting i t . Summary i  The  r e s u l t s of  this  study  under t h r e e  major h e a d i n g s :  information  seeking  A guestionnaire teachers, district achieved,  behavior, was  in British  (1)  description  and  (3)  distributed  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and level  have been o r g a n i z e d  support  Columbia.  your  of  and  the  "ideal"  discussed user*  system.  t o a random sample o f personnel A usable  (2)  at the  r e t u r n of  1,640  school  and  1,037  was  75  Under  the  heading  or p r o f e s s i o n a l isolation, were  factors  education,  examined  "description  were i n v e s t i g a t e d ;  dissemination  singly were  position  education,  attitude  found  to information  hierarchy  was  t o the f i v e  (pCiOOil)  relationships  attitude and  and  and  scale  other  position was  These  were f o u n d  Significant  and  was  and  experience,  a  also  factors.  The  three-level  analyzed  Highly  between a t t i t u d e  attitude  factors  and d i s s e m i n a t i o n :  analyzed  personal  experience,  seeking  sources,  Means  and  calculated  and rank  and  Analysis  with  significant and  and e d u c a t i o n *  headings  behavior: problems  order  of  position,  and  attitude  of  variance  as t h e i n d e p e n d e n t  (p<.05)  F-ratio ,  analyzed  i n t h e same way,  Scheffe's  ;  independent  the  purposes, sources, in  locating  each  only  dissemination  was  item  general  in  topic  characteristics  and u s i n g  sources  performed  variable, test  using  variable.  ten of the t h i r t e e n isolation  under  this  information: section  were  reported;  position  for  position  attitude  were f o u r major  information  the  experience,  dissemination;  There  of  position,  and a t t i t u d e .  between  confirmed,  relation  s i x personal  and i n v a r i o u s combinations,;  relationships and  of the user*,  and f o r  was  purposes each  applied.  Sources  and s o u r c e s  factors  were as  there  were  differences,  for  seven, f o r experience  one,  significant  three, f o r education  using  significant  each o f t h e p e r s o n a l  For position with  on  s e v e n , and f o r a t t i t u d e t e n ;  76  Characteristics with The  position significant  Scheffe*s  test  T h e r e were  characteristics  to locate  variable,  as separate independent  were  and  examined  differences  position  and a t t i t u d e contrasts  variable;  further  significant differences  significant  significant  independent  attitude  F-ratios  five  characteristics  two  and  o f s o u r c e s and p r o b l e m s were b o t h  when  were  found  attitude  when was  information  to  system  the  open-ended  were t a b u l a t e d  seven  problems, position  the  as  when when only  was t h e  independent contrasts.  q u e s t i o n about  and r e p o r t e d  means  and  f i v e o f t h e t e n s o u r c e s had s i g n i f i c a n t  Responses  using  between means.  were compared. F o r were  variables. by  between  analyzed,  analyzed  your " i d e a l " frequencies.  77  CHAPTER V SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  Summary The  purpose o f t h i s  professional  and  information; they  was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e  psychological characteristics  t h e i r purposes f o r seeking  and  the  educational scale,  problems  information,  to  A questionnaire  support  a  in  the  educators Position  experience,  were  users*  in  important  seeking  to  or using  to  t o determine the extent  pilot  sample  of  the  schools  province  response  o f g r o w t h and d e v e l o p m e n t .  was d e s i g n e d ,  in  affective  and a n a l y z e d  a 'hierarchy*  random  personnel  education  measure  was d e v e l o p e d  t o which i t r e f l e c t e d  to  encounter  are  the sources  i n f o r m a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , an a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n  developed  mailed  they  that  personal,  of the users o f  information,  use, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f sources  them,  1,037  study  tested,  teachers, and  of B r i t i s h  revised  and  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and  district  offices  Columbia. Responses  of from  analyzed.  and a t t i t u d e b o t h education,  had  strong  and i n f o r m a t i o n  correlations  dissemination.  with  Sense o f  i  isolation but  was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  diddiffer  geographic The  from  region  related to position or attitude,  to region,  although  n o t on  a  simple  distance factor. fifteen-item  information  was a n a l y z e d  scale  designed  to  measure a t t i t u d e t o  t o d e t e r m i n e whether a  'hierarchy'  of  78  development  and  a five-level  taxonomy  level  growth of a t t i t u d e  h i e r a r c h y was Fifteen  as t o t h e i r  used  as  effects  of  freguency  use.  position  were  only  one  change  o r ho  and  These r a t i n g s  analyzed  this  A  The  It  use  also  difference  those  of  who  different  showed t h a t  years  r e p o r t e d and  of  sources  scale  to frequency  o f iise o f s o u r c e s . reqression  illuminated  these  dissemination  and  contrasts)  who  analyses  position  Experience,  for relatively  on that they  nearly  study,  there  university  a b a c h e l o r ' s degree*  and  of  frequency  the  and  use  attitude  of to  related  extended  relationships.  i n explaining  of  significantly  using  For  but the r a t e  sources  (measured  education  rated  when  have no  s c o r e on  directly  bivariate  were s i g n i f i c a n t  sources*  significant  were b o t h  complex  use o f  university  experience;  the t o t a l  information  Multiple  and  the  indicate  while the  between t h o s e  have no more t h a n  increased  dissemination  identify  analyses  source, "educational journals", did with  to  analysis*  results  g r o u p s do  were  categories into  significant  sources i n c r e a s e s with post-graduate little  three-  i n f o r m a t i o n were  the nine p o s i t i o n  Purposes.  r e v e a l e d by  information*  degree  all  seeking  to respondents.  they  on  for  s o u r c e s o f e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n were  of  different  is  importance  Position  Thirteen  all  purposes  In a d d i t i o n  r e l a t i o n s h i p was  seek  not confirmed, a l e s s c o n c i s e ,  a b a s i s f o r grouping  classes.  Although  confirmed*  possible  rated  four  was  c o u l d be c o n f i r m e d .  and  Attitude,  three  planned  the v a r i a n c e : o f n e a r l y isolation  f e w e r s o u r c e s , and  at a  were  lower  each level  79  of  significance* Three  were: 1)  factors  easily  of  sources,  accessed,  less a c c e s s i b l e sources, traditional Eleven  to  considered of the  "is  was  Only mean that  important  access  highly  one,  "finding  greater  than  the  reported  style  of  final asking  as  information  were  2)  interpersonal  formal, sources,  2.5,  rated  the  of  on a  cited  not  the  673. 27  and were "is  information  difficulty  scale. This  a  major  of  use  to p o s i t i o n  had  a  suggests  categories  was  an  of  were were  o f an  that  in  problems or  to  category.  statement  responses  factor  of sources  ^questionnaire  characteristics  cause*  problems as b a r r i e r s t o  not  level  they  information"  the  the  was  personal  f r e q u e n c i e s , and  midpoint  characteristics.  f o r or read  most o f  by  were  o b j e c t i v e " and  of problems, i n d i c a t i n g  The  the  most i m p o r t a n t  and  as to the  Position  u s e r s , but  for  ( a l l means >2.5,  m i d p o i n t on  see  were r a t e d  I need". A t t i t u d e t o  r e l a t e d to the  item  sources  A l l characteristics  reliable  time t o look  system*  commonly  sources,  involving others";  variance  idiosyncratic,  information  factor analysis,  were " i s f r e e o r i n e x p e n s i v e "  accurate*  information.  explaining  most  important  respondents did not  question  importance*  r e l a t e d to importance problems  The  organized  a l l groups  without  Ten  personal  3)  of i n f o r m a t i o n  to  by  Least  t o have t h e  getting  are  according  authoritative,  likely  and  print  by  i n s e r v i c e programs.  scale).  "provides  traditional  characteristics  respondents  identified  open-ended  an  "ideal"  tabulated  and  developed;  The  "ideal"  information  80  s y s t e m s were 1) district  computer  libraries,  s e e k and  use  information  retrieval  3)  improved  information, personnel  and/or  5)  i n the  school  courses  ERIC,  2)  libraries,  and  improved 4)  workshops,  time  to  and  6)  district.  Limitations T  Because of t h e  the  school  Columbia*  The  reflect  educational biased  g e n e r a l i z a b l e to the  be  administrators  district  biased;  portion  if of  information.  preferences  substantially  The small  be  populations  support  the  this each  is  so,  Hence t h e  of i n f o r m a t i o n  observations,  of the or  the  probably  study use.  to  use  may  be  However,  c o m p a r i s o n s between g r o u p s s h o u l d  their  are  with  significant  question  British  i s most l i k e l y  that  corresponding  significant,  a smaller  often  still  a t a p<.05 l e v e l  or  relatively  proportions at  sample s i z e ,  some  p<.001  validity  of  measurements  data  available i s that  the  questionnaire*  provided  were used  This l i m i t a t i o n  i n the  each person may  would  better*  self-report.  by  of  levels.  most o f t h o s e  A n o t h e r l i m i t a t i o n , common t o a l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e the  at  means t h a t  r e s u l t s of t h i s  prospect  of  respondents  group t h a t  they  personnel  province  response r a t e of 63%  1,037, i s so l a r g e  and  variance  even  in  and  results  useful.  F-ratios  However,  and  sample s i z e ,  •explained*  level  usable  toward a f a v o r a b l e  relative  still  are  overall  the  g r o u p s were r a n d o m l y s a m p l e d , t h e  teachers,  and  f i n d i n g s may  be  the  questionnaire  represent, the  all  be  studies, i s  Since study, in  no  other  the  only  response  of s p e c i a l concern  to in  81  the  r e p o r t i n g of frequency  the  rating  of dissemination of  of problems i n seeking  or usinq  information  information.  When t h e a t t i t u d e - t o - i n f o r m a t i o n s c a l e was a n a l y z e d cumulative  (Guttman)  confirmed.  The i n a b i l i t y  taxonomy design  scale  (Krathwohl,  to  1964)  o f some o f t h e i t e m s  analysis,  confirm may  theoretical  hierarchy*  and  of i t shierarchical  testing  Further  three  a l l five  relate  than  to  a  nature,  usinq a  levels  levels  were  of  the  more t o i n a p p r o p r i a t e flaw  validation  and  in  the  original  of the a t t i t u d e  scale,  i sdesirable.  Conclusions This results  s e c t i o n w i l l d e a l with  of t h e study,  of the study Description The  particular  r e f e r e n c e . t o the  purposes  as s e t out i n Chapter I I . o f the User  first  problem  professional  and  experience,  sense  information  with  t h e c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from t h e  posed  personal of  i n the study  factors  of  isolation,  dissemination,  and  position,  level  to  was t o measure t h e  of  study  years  of  education,  and  some  of  their  interrelationships. Position* frame  Position  was t h e v a r i a b l e on w h i c h t h e s a m p l i n g  was  based*  The  department  heads,  administrators  elementary Using  and s e c o n d a r y  •profiles'  elementary  categories  schools  and and  teachers  collapsed into and  included support  from  o f purposes f o r seeking  g r o u p s were e m p i r i c a l l y 1)  nine  teachers,  personnel  district  from  offices.  i n f o r m a t i o n , these  nine  four position categories:  elementary  support  personnel,  2)  82  secondary  teachers  elementary, secondary  secondary  and d i s t r i c t  Experience^ with  years  teachers  and  and  district  personnel.  When t h e n i n e  positions  support  personnel  had  less  in  than  Isolation.  felt  were c o r r e l a t e d  with  obvious  that  geographic  actual  metropolitan area of  respondents.  a  feeling  information  sources.  Education*  secondary two  Between  have no u n i v e r s i t y principals  degrees.  of  When  the  s c h o o l r e g i o n s , i t was  distance  from  affecting to  was  elementary  and d i s t r i c t  district  revealed that  isolated*  are not isolated  degree,  the  of i s o l a t i o n  the twelve  of education  20-30%  and  of professional  half  or extensive i n - s e r v i c e  The l e v e l  4)  half the  elementary  years  Accessibility  t h a t they  and  years o f experience.  was n o t t h e o n l y f a c t o r  educational l i b r a r i e s ,  personnel  the  seriously  responses  position,  both  The measure o f s e n s e  v e r y few o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s  teachers  t h a t more t h a n  ten  twenty  3)  were, c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d  At t h e o t h e r e x t r e m e , more t h a n  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have more t h a n  heads,  administrators,  support  schools  experience*  isolation  department  o f e x p e r i e n c e , i t was f o u n d  and  secondary  secondary  while  a  large  the sense.of  teacher  centres,  p r o g r a m s may g i v e from  highly  educational  related  to  t e a c h e r s and s u p p o r t more  than  60%  of  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have a t l e a s t  83  Dissemination.  The s e l f - r e p o r t  was h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d viewed than  with  t h e m s e l v e s as being  once e a c h  contrast,  position.  that  District  dissemination administrators  asked f o r o r g i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n  day. More t h a n  report  of information  three-quarters  they  a r e asked  of  more  teachers,  f o r or qive  in  information  once a week o r l e s s .  An his  individual's  years  of  information result to  experience  disseminatinq  of the p o s i t i o n  questions  a person's is  educational position and  his  level  of  p r a c t i c e s may be b o t h  he h o l d s ;  o r the q i v i n q  disseminating  i s partly  a result  of  education, a  cause  Some j o b s r e q u i r e . m o r e  His  and  a  response  o f i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t a t t h e same t i m e  h a b i t s may i n f l u e n c e w h e t h e r o r n o t  he  offered that kind of position* Attitude.  information structured Total  to represent  professional  on  this  categories,  As  scores  years  respondents with increases*  levels was  factors*  of  of  item  attitude  scale  which  of Krathwohl's  correlated As r e g a r d s and  a t t i t u d e to information  with  position,  support, than  to was  taxonomy. the the  five two  indicated a  a l l the  g r o u p s had a l a r g e p e r c e n t a g e  l e s s than  Years o f e x p e r i e n c e other.  test  factor  fifteen  administrative  The two t e a c h i n g  who had a v e r a g e  a  the f i v e  and p e r s o n a l  much more p o s i t i v e groups,*  psychological  was measured on  score  district  The :  other  (27-30%)  30 on t h e s c a l e *  and a t t i t u d e r e l a t e d  experience  strongly positive  increase,  directly the  to  each  percentage o f  a t t i t u d e s to information  also  84  Sense o f i s o l a t i o n  and  attitude  were  not  significantly  related* The and  r e l a t i o n s h i p between e d u c a t i o n  positive.  who  scored  double the  The  percentage  above  fifty  of  on  those the  percentage of those  and  with  a t t i t u d e was  one  or  two  a t t i t u d e s c a l e was  without  a degree  who  strong degrees  more t h a n  scored  that  high. The  same  dissemination  and  information more  on  the  than  on  the  on  scale  profession  Information Other measure  reflects  who  use,  educational  they  between disseminate  t h i r d s scored  those  fifty  or  who  disseminated  fifths  scored  s c a l e seems t o  respect tasks  the  period  his  kind  within  be  less  measuring  f o r i d e a s about h i s job  of  of t i m e ,  i s promoted  Seeking  who  the  subject  i n v o l v e s . A high  p e r s o n who  score  remains i n  acquires  an  the  post-graduate  profession.  Behavior  sections  of  for  sources, and  two  Of  found  say  once a month, o v e r two  educational  purposes  information their  scale.  i n and  f o r a long  d e g r e e s , and  who  a day,  a t t i t u d e to information  and/or the the  those  was  scale*  individual's interest area  once  attitude l e s s than  than t h i r t y  relationship  a t t i t u d e . Of  more  information  The  direct  the seeking  questionnaire  information, frequency  characteristics  problems  information.  were: d e s i g n e d  of sources  encountered  in  that  seeking  of  to  use  of  influence and  using  85  Purposes; assessed, four  a  When t h e very  position  position  Each  groups  comparisons revealed planning  and  position  on  the  fifteen  purposes  purposes  p u r p o s e had an i d i o s y n c r a t i c and/or  when  i n this  of  complex r e l a t i o n s h i p was r e v e a l e d  groups  information.  effect  a  different  Scheffe's  test  a n a l y s i s would  in-service  programs  set  was  between t h e for  seeking  ordering of  ofthe  significant  was a p p l i e d . . T h e i n f o r m a t i o n  be v a l u a b l e  f o r those  who  are  f o r one o r more o f t h e p o s i t i o n  groups.  Sources; indicated in  An e x a m i n a t i o n  their  preferences  different  f o r information  t h a t showed s i m i l a r  groups,  preferences  o f each qroup should  with  different  job categories;  workshops,  they  tend  instead the  effective  courses  When to  use  The stronq;  of  teachers,  seminars  lower  reported  the  be  Secondary  frequent  administrators sources  o f looking f o r sources  g r o u p s t o be  patterns  Although  of  use  utility  d e l i v e r y of i n f o r m a t i o n  and  administrators  source:  sources;  plan  that  by  of  they  the  complex. to  those  t o educators i n  any o t h e r that  rated group,  particular  i n - s e r v i c e proqrams,  which  there  f o r example,  than  use  sources distictly  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p h e r e t o o was q u i t e  concerned  while  o f use o f  t h a t the f o u r major p o s i t i o n groups d i f f e r e d  were a few s o u r c e s  The  of t h e frequency  perhaps  themselves  prefer  might be more a c c e p t a b l e t o  served.  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  isolation  and  was  not  i t was  f o r only  four sources..The  most  that  felt  interesting "extremely"  significant  feature  of this  isolated  a n a l y s i s was  reported  more f r e q u e n t  sources  those  use.of  who  sources  than  86  those  who f e l t  that  those  strong  who  desire  forward  "considerably" isolated. felt  "extremely"  T h i s seems  isolated  to  are those  indicate  who f e e l a  t o use e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d t h e r e f o r e  more  effort  "considerably"  isolated  from  information  have  no  strong  to  get  i t , while  may be r e v e a l i n g  that  i s of l e s s  attraction  to  a  sense  concern  or  those  who  of  feel  isolation  t o them b e c a u s e  sense  of  need  put  for  they the  information. When l e v e l the t h i r t e e n had  o f e d u c a t i o n and s o u r c e s  s o u r c e s had s i g n i f i c a n t  significant  contrasts  F - r a t i o s and s e v e n  between  more t h a n  means.  contrasts,  those  with  different  from  t h e o t h e r two g r o u p s .  i n c r e a s e t h e r e p o r t e d use curriculum  little  that  to influence  s i x of  were  a l l information  undergraduate  of those these  significantly  G r a d u a t e s t u d i e s seems t o  w i t h no d e g r e e and t h o s e  suggests  In  degree  m a t e r i a l s * F o r o n l y one s o u r c e  between t h o s e This  of  one  were a n a l y z e d , e i g h t o f  sources  was t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e  with a b a c h e l o r ' s  courses  s t u d e n t s and f u t u r e  except  degree.  may p r e s e n t l y do v e r y  teachers  to  use  many  sources o f educational information..  The to  years  journals. no  of  o f use o f s o u r c e s  experience  Those  other source  field. and  freguency  with  for  only  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y one  more e x p e r i e n c e  does f r e g u e n c y  source,  use t h i s  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and s u p p o r t  information,  The  they  a r e having  relationship  personnel  educational  s o u r c e more. F o r  o f use i n c r e a s e w i t h  I f t h e r e a r e any programs a t t e m p t i n g  years i n the  t o persuade  to  related  look  for  teachers helpful  no e f f e c t .  between  freguency  o f use o f s o u r c e s a n d  87  dissemination  was much more d i r e c t  purposes  and  those  are asked f o r o r give  use  who  position.  of i n f o r m a t i o n Frequency  picture source  of  and  equation  first  variance  for  respectively,;  variance entered  and  low t o t a l  of the independent  althouqh  and s e c o n d , e x p l a i n e d only  five  and  they  accounted  eiqht  of  the  for  sources  least;  was  Isolation  attitude,  i n t o the r e g r e s s i o n equation a siqnificant  amount  general  developed. into the  amounts o f thirteen  the  sources  contrasts,  amounts  of the  was s i q n i f i c a n t  for  factor i n explaininq  which,  after  performed  o f use o f e a c h  planned  siqnificant  By f a r t h e s t r o n q e s t  use was  explained  on t h e  were e n t e r e d  siqnificant  same  scores  variables, a  P o s i t i o n , a s measured by t h r e e  sources.  the  and p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c t o r s  education,  i n source  variables,  a t t i t u d e , had  a n a l y s i s of sources  f o r most o f t h e s o u r c e s ,  three  comparisons,  make t h e l e a s t  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between f r e q u e n c y  dissemination  variance only  ordering  the  least  s c a l e use t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  and t h e s i x p e r s o n a l  Experience.  and  sources  multiple regression  a priori  information  r e l a t i o n s h i p , Those w i t h  attitude t o information  using  a l l the s i g n i f i c a n t  or  sources:  o f use o f  straightforward  When  For  t h a n t h a t between s o u r c e s  althouqh  a l l other  i t  was  independent  of variance  f o r every  source.  Althouqh statistically explained variance  many  of  the  significant,  ranged  in  the .  reqression  were  the a c t u a l percentage o f t h e v a r i a n c e  f r o m 5.5%  i n t h e use o f e v e r y  predictors.  steps  to 25%; source  hence a l a r g e i s unexplained  proportion of by t h e s e  six  88  Factor factors:  1)  accessible both are  analysis  of  print  sources,  and  information  should  one  Eleven  importance  in  characteristics item  t o the  three,  this i n the "Is  objective"  w h i c h was  study;  the  two  In  separate  "is  Hood and  items,  the  aides,  so  many  user;  and  there  suggest  that in  A l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had  means  scale. was  first  the  the  positive The  access  educators,  low  and  may  this  and  r a n k i n g of involving  "is  free  one or  Canadian  would  ninth  and  Blackwell and  as w e l l some  as  basic  educators; item  with  rank  i t as  inexpensive"  o t h e r s " suggests  as and  legislators  administrators);  no  listed  discrepency  school boards,  that  this  reliable"  (the Hood  and  and  in  was  have p r o d u c e d a s i n g l e  attributes  without  item  for  except  reliable  respondents this  of  ordering  (1976) s t u d y ,  state  between A m e r i c a n  items  rank  b i a s e d " which r a n k e d  members o f d i s t r i c t  two  to the  accurate,  P o s s i b l e reasons  teachers  ordering  accurate,  B l a c k w e l l study,  not  rank  similar  by  of  The  Hood & B l a c k w e l l  level  in attitude  unimportant. "gives  and  district  or combining  sources,  were  difference in populations  included state  difference  less  sources  " i s authoritative,  include:  and  sources  characteristics  study  ranked  respectively.  local  of  authoritative,  fifteenth  their  2)  traditional in-service  the  objective, ,impartial,  study  print sources,  way;  characteristics  for  orthogonal  offered to educational p r a c t i t i o n e r s  above t h e n e u t r a l p o i n t o f  of  3)  groups  be  Characteristics. on  and  i n three  i n t e r p e r s o n a l . These r e s u l t s r e v e a l t h a t  three q u i t e d i s t i n c t  rated  resulted  c l o s e a t hand, t r a d i t i o n a l  print  more t h a n  sources  that users  and may  89  be  prepared  t o pay f o r some i n f o r m a t i o n  would n o t f i n d  was  significant  of t h e eleven  with  a high  the  characteristic  The by  educators  look  as  the  i n finding  midpoint  enough" r a n k e d  most  scale  reflected  A  total  an  analysis  assumption  that  Analyses  f o r " i s free or  with  problems  problem  the s c a l e *  with  extent  a  "Getting information quickly t h e : concern  i n t h e Hood and B l a c k w e l l  The f i n a l  to  the  examine  the  total  score  achieved  obtained  that  and l o g i c a l l y  isolation,  significantly  significantly  That t o t a l  professional  education  was  growth.  of  the  exists.  to  and  and  validity  t h a t a measure o f a t t i t u d e  personal  for  study.  purpose o f t h e study  indicated  f a c t o r s i n the study.  greater  was c a l c u l a t e d f o r e a c h r e s p o n d e n t , and  a hierarchy  related  mean  t o which t h e a t t i t u d e t o i n f o r m a t i o n  performed  using  faced  " F i n d i n g time t o  !a h i e r a r c h y o f a t t i t u d e d e v e l o p m e n t  was  to rate  Only  as a problem, c o n f i r m i n g  a t t i t u d e score  persons  a l s o tended  and u s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n .  discussed  the  cases,  reversed.  Attitude t o Information. determine  the variance of  seven  important.  was t h e o n l y of  second  speed o f r e t r i e v a l  to  In  major s e c t i o n was c o n c e r n e d  f o r information"  than  explaining  attitude to information  was t h e o r d e r  final  in  characteristics.  positive  inexpensive"  they  a human i n t e r c e d e r unwelcome.  Attitude eight  s e r v i c e s , and t h a t  score  factors  on  information  position,  and d i s s e m i n a t i o n , and  l a r g e p o r t i o n s o f the variance  test  had  been  t o the other  was c o r r e l a t e d of  this  i t also  with  the  experience, explained  (exclusive of that  90  explained was  by  other  performed  factors)  on  the  when  stepwise  reported  frequency  multiple o f use  regression  of  information  sources. The  s c a l e was  Krathwohl's Domain  Taxonomy  of  (1964). Mikulecky  major s t a g e s reading  of  the  attitude  a n a l y s i s was the  constructed  t o measure  Educational (1976) had  taxonomy test.  performed  on  in  stages,  Although potent  a  a  hierarchy  the  i n terms of  further  the  r e s p o n s e s to the  utility,  a n a l y s i s and  study,  Position  of  specific  and  educators; valuable seeking  the  scale  only  three  important  the  his  five MBEAM  (Guttman)  fifteen  items  of  possible to confirm a l l  was  strongly  confirmed;  l e v e l s i s not p a r t i c u l a r y suggests  items could,  goals of t h i s  information  emerges,;  the  a cumulative  S e e k e r s and  d e s c r i p t i o n o f e a c h and behavior  of  perhaps,  that lead  validated hierarchy;  unique f a c e t s of the If  of  i t p o s e s p r o m i s e and  Groups as I n f o r m a t i o n  One  not  r e w r i t i n g of the  to a f o u r - or f i v e - l e v e l  analysis  this  of  stages  O b j e c t i v e s : the A f f e c t i v e  In  three-level  five  been a b l e t o v e r i f y  a t t i t u d e s c a l e . A l t h o u g h i t was  five  the  four  Users study  was  to  identify  major p o s i t i o n groups  about each group i s assembled, its  profile  of  of a  information-  91  Elementary members o f t h i s lowest of  level  on  education  the  with  attitude  Regarding  are  the  and  "curriculum  most  users  to the  counterparts. level  of  groups,  report  and  support  personnel  Teachers  and  group were q u i t e  have t h e  use and  of they  libraries"  They had  more y e a r s They  reported  felt  the  use".  g r o u p had highest.  of  sources  three  from  the  the  lowest  the  new  near  at or  information  HeadsThe  their  elementary  and  of  a  higher  of a l l the information  information  m a t e r i a l s " and  fifteen  means, and  the  " i s free  most i s o l a t e d level  for  groups.  of experience,  lowest  of  and  using  major p u r p o s e s f o r s e e k i n g  For eight  "is  Department  different  materials", "developing  secondary  district  and  Secondary  "finding  classroom  materials",  frequent  include  other  Their  for  major  materials".  " i s easy t o use",  dissemination. new  lowest  Their  textbooks",  characteristics  problems of the  education. and  level  second  new  most  o f " s c h o o l and  the  reported  scale.  "finding  T h e i r problems i n seeking  this  experience,  lowest  new  The  materials".  important  Secondary  of  c o l l e a g u e s " , "books and  usually available",  members o f  are  they  hand  were s i m i l a r  second  "developing  teachers  inexpensive".  years  information  elementary and  the  information  most f r e q u e n t  The  to  sources, with  fewest  Personnel^  They a l s o h a v e t h e  p r o b l e m s " , and  "conversations  Elementary Support  and  dissemination.  purposes f o r seeking "students  and  g r o u p have t h e of  information  scores  Teachers  "facts  purposes,  for only  two  were  did  this they  92  A  similar  pattern  used.  Secondary  sources using and  emerged  from  teachers  and d e p a r t m e n t h e a d s  "books and t e x t b o o k s " ,  "books and f i l e s  results  "conversations  i n my o f f i c e "  sources,  the  the  thirteen  this  Only  f o r "books and t e x t b o o k s "  with  For eight o f  frequent  d i d i t report  the  reported  colleagues",  most f r e q u e n t l y .  was t h e l e a s t  regarding  user  group.  highest  level  of use.  Characteristics secondary other to  teachers  of  sources  revealed  that  they  important  reported  g r o u p s with  significantly  less  "making  "resolving  d i f f e r e n c e s between r e p o r t s " . P e r h a p s  their  i s  reported  an  information  to other  regarding  difficulty  artifact  understandable  of their  lack of disseminating  Elementary  Principals  and  experience principals  secondary within  and  this  to  o t h e r s " and of  minimal use o f sources  and  this  activity.  Vice  havinq  district  group  much  less  is  principals,  Secondary  Administrators.  levels.  quite  The  broad,  experience  than  with the  district  large  As  isolation. all  other  The l e v e l groups,  have more t h a n level  of  group  i t  o f education  projects  a  strong  one d e g r e e . The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  information  dissemination;  and  by  a  sense  of  that  of  i n the study  who  i s much h i g h e r  and i n c l u d e s most o f t h o s e  of  school  y e t a s a group i t i s t h e most e x p e r i e n c e d a  The  at the  range  administrators, margin.  regard  difficulty  m a j o r g r o u p i n c l u d e s a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and s u p e r v i s o r s  elementary,  any  lack  £ £ i S £ i £ a l s and V i c e p . r i n c i j 3 a l s ^ and D i s t r i c t third  to the  no s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s f r o m  g r o u p . However, when compared  problems f a c e d ,  were  than  report their  the highest attitude  to  93  information support  is  highly  major purposes f o r seeking  materials", trends",  "professional  and  interested  in "facts  The  including  sources  textbooks".  For  others,  the  files first  sources  of  new and  "is  of  objective".  free and  or  more a c c e s s  Secondary  Supjaort  g r o u p had  the  and  lowest  personnel  had  d i s s e m i n a t i o n . The the  highest  and  and  for  least  freguent  users.  were e x a m i n e d , t h e  most  were  "keeps  " i s authoritative, important  me  accurate,  characteristics  " i s n e a r a t hand  and  usually  that this  group  retrieval.  u s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n were no  Personnel  with  for eight  use,  I t seems l i k e l y  f o r other  second  and  greatest  least  to use".  on  "books  the  and  m o d e r a t e s e n s e of i s o l a t i o n , and  sources,  t o ways o f d e l e g a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s than  education  and  administrators  The  highest  "conversations  office",  sources  for  scored  are  of t h e s e  inexpensive",  " i s easy  and  techniques".  my  the  developments",  Problems i n s e e k i n g  a  use"  "awareness  new  least  most  two  "finding  m a t e r i a l s " . They were t h e  in  were t h e y  characteristics  available"  This  used  characteristics  important  reliable  new  are  new  administrators reported  none o f t h e  When  the  information  "teaching  they  " b o o k s and  for  the  of  f o r classroom  colleagues",  has  close to that of  development",  "developing  four purposes,  were  —very  personnel.  The  aware  favorable  different  groups. and  District  number o f and  the  Support  years  of  Personnel. experience,  second h i g h e s t  secondary  and  average scores  on  district the  levels  of  support  attitude-to-  94  information  The  scale,  main  "evaluation", and  "students  purposes  with  and  information  "finding  personnel,  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  "educational  "computer  and  materials"  along  with  more f r e q u e n t  journals",  retrieval"  new  were  the  users  of  "conventions  and  "research reports,  theses  dissertations".  For both and  problems". Support  group,  sources:  meetings",  seeking  " c u r r i c u l u m development",  administrative four  for  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sources  u s i n g e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , the  significantly  different  from  and  support  the other  Recommendations f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y practice  and  group  position  Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r  categories,  problems i n  seeking was  not  two  main  groups.  Study  are divided i n t o  research.  Recgmmendations f o r P r a c t i c e  Preservice. need f o r an and the  their  The  results  undergraduate course  potential  value  available  bibliographies, educators  are  professional information needs.  to and  to  the  through  indicate of  continue  to  they have  real  and  not  enter  practical  indexes  and  s y s t e m s ( ERIC, e t c . ) .  learn must n o t been  research  a  information  should  journals,  computer r e t r i e v a l  that  study  sources  unaware o f t h e  them  competence, sources  on  this  to t e a c h e r s . Teachers  profession completely  advice  from  and  grow  in  their  remain i g n o r a n t of  designed  to  serve  If  the  their  95  Undergraduate aware o f t h e  courses  sources,  should  to  be d e s i g n e d  sensitize  information  and knowledge a v a i l a b l e ,  of the value  of continuing  undergraduate  years  apathy, s u s p i c i o n (Line,  1971),  to learn  provide  and  and  the  foster  to  the  The  to reduce the  educational  positive  of  conscious  profession.  t i m e and p l a c e toward  students  stores  and t o make them  aoout t h e i r  hostility  to  them  t o make  research  attitudes  toward  new  information.  Inservice. application delivering  The  There are  of  the  important  in  revised basis service  for  with  in  before  for  practical  t o d e s i g n i n g and  of  identifying  designing  The p r e s e n t sources, are  systems f o r  use o f and  the  sources,  the problems  a l l  important  or information  centres or  systems.  an i n s t r u m e n t  guestionnaire,  a specific  programs.  valuable  teacher  dissemination  a sound  study  information  planning  needs, t h i s  to suit  be  information.  i n conjunction  information  this  population  seeking  information  Used  of  characteristics  in  considerations  would  a  educational  identified  other  of  implications  training.  guestionnaire  delivering the  results  in-service  characteristics  several  district  to identify  in its  or region,  needs assessment instrument  present would  specific form  or  provide the  f o r proposed i n -  96  Recommendations f o r R e s e a r c h The suggest  results  from  further research  1.  The  measure  study  to identify  that  could  he  sections  of  the  questionnaire  sense o f i s o l a t i o n  needs f u r t h e r  problems.  of  the  the f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e investigated  libraries  available,  personnel  in  their  several  the  the  area,  i m p a c t , and t h e  i t . Some  factors  i n c l u d e t h e number and g u a l i t y o f  number  and  the extent  guality  of  quality  of  resource  o f i n - s e r v i c e proqrams and  the  needs  assessment  that  precedes i n - s e r v i c e programs.  2.  The  self-report  confirmation. information the  I t i s important dissemination.  attitude scale i n this  but  there  is  Submitting  a  those  need  would  to identify  The s e l f  report  questionnaire  to  verify  would  the  simple  for  verification  needs  "linkers"  in  of d i s s e m i n a t i o n  and  are a  starting  validity  to the t o t a l  go  activities  natural  and i n c l u d i n g a q u e s t i o n  t o whom you  provide  dissemination  two q u e s t i o n s  of s e v e r a l s c h o o l s of " t h o s e  of  point,  of  responses.  population  of s t a f f s  asking  f o r t h e names  educational  information"  o r c o n t r a d i c t i o n of the s e l f  report. 3.  Empirical studies  attitude  to  information pamphlets  information  sources or  would  of  or  a  or  be  carried  frequency  c a n be c h a n g e d t h r o u g n  journal  questionnaire behavior  should  articles.  provide similar  'before  The 1  survey  of  out use  of  workshops,  relevent  data;  on  items  unobtrusive  administered  whether specific seminars, in  the  measures  s e v e r a l months  97  later  c o u l d measure t h e c h a n g e s a c h i e v e d 4.  items  The  attitude  should h  replaced. comparable  the a t t i t u d e use  of  design  be  to  information  carefully  revised  could  and be  populations f o r verification. s c a l e would s u g g e s t  Krathwohl's of a t t i t u d e  specific  scale  reanalyzed  version  by  is  submitted partial  should to  field.  The be  other,  success  further experimentation  taxonomy as a c o n c e p t u a l  scales in this  promising.  poor items  The  treatments.  in  framework f o r  of the the  98  REFERENCE NOTES  1. Hood, P. P e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,  July  5, 1977.  2. Computer M a n u a l s R e f e r e n c e d B j e r r i n g , J . , C a m p b e l l , J . , Halm, J . , Morley, R. UBC:MVTAB (Multivariate Contingency T a b u l a t i o n s ) . Computing C e n t r e , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.: June, 1974. Brown, M.B. ( E d . ) . B i o m e d i c a l Computer Programs. U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r m i a P r e s s , B e r k l e y , 1977. (Program d e v e l o p e d a t t h e Health Sciences Computing Facility, UCLA, which i s s p o n s o r e d by t h e NIH S p e c i a l R e s e a r c h R e s o u r c e s G r a n t RR3.) Le,  C , & T e n i s c i , T. UBC:TRP ( T r i a n g u l a r R e g r e s s i o n Computing Centre, University of British V a n c o u v e r , B.C.: J u n e , 1977.  Package). Columbia,  N e l s o n , L.R. G u i d e t o L e r t a p Use and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . New Z e a l a n d : U n i v e r s i t y o f Otago, 1974.  Dunedin,  Nie,  N., Hull, C , J e n k i n s , J . , S t i e n b r e n n e r , K., S B e n t , D. SPSS, 2nd.Ed. (Statistical Package for the Social S c i e n c e s ) . M c G r a w - H i l l , New Y o r k , 1975.  Patterson, J. 6 Whitaker, R. UBC:C-GROUP (Hieracrchical Grouping A n a l y s i s with Optional Contingency Constraint) . Computing Centre, University of British Columbia, V a n c o u v e r , B.C.: J u n e , 1977. Webb, B. UBC:FMT' (A D o c u m e n t a t i o n P r o g r a m ) . Resource Ecology, University of V a n c o u v e r , B.C.: 1976.  Institute British  o f Animal Columbia,  99  BIBLIOGRAPHY This b i b l i o g r a p h y i n c l u d e s a number of r e f e r e n c e s not c i t e d put related t o the i s s u e s of the study. References c i t e d are i n d i c a t e d with * at the beginning of the r e f e r e n c e . • A l l e n , T. J . I n f o r m a t i o n needs and uses. In C A . Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and technology (Vol.4). Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i c a , I n c . ,  1969.  Anderla, G. I n f o r m a t i o n needs i n 19 78.: a f o r e c a s t i n g study, o f information needs and resources. Paris, France: Organization f o r Economic Cooperation and Development,  1973.  •Bath  University of Technology. Information requirements of C o l l e g e of Education l e c t u r e r s and schoolteachers. 1971. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 049 775)  •Bernal, J.D. Scientific information Proceedings, J[2X  1960,  432-438.  and  its  users.  ASLIB  • B e r n i e r , C L . Measurement of how w e l l p r o f e s s i o n a l people keep up with t h e i r t e c h n i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . J o u r n a l of the American S o c i e t y f o r Information S c i e n c e ^  1971, 22 292-293.  •Borko, H. Determining user requirements f o r an i n f o r m a t i o n storage and retrieval system: a systems approach. In Information systems workshop the designer .is r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and h i s methodology. Washington, D. C.: Sparton Books,  1962.  •Borko, H. The a n a l y s i s and design of i n f o r m a t i o n systems. In A.W. E l i a s (Ed.), Drexel Information Science Series^ 4 Washington D . c T : Sparton Books,  121-132.  1967.  •Borko, H. Information science: Documentation, 1968, J9 3-5.  what  is  X  it?  American  and  methods..  X  •Borko, H. 5 B e r n i e r , C. I. A b s t r a c t i n g New York: Academic Press, 1975.  concepts  •Bourne, C P . A review of tne methodology of i n f o r m a t i o n system design. In Information systems workshop the designer s responsibility and his figthodoloqy^ Washington, D. C. : Sparton Books, 1962. 1  • B r i t t a i n , J . M. Information and i t s users a review special r e f e r e n c e s to the social s c i e n c e s . Bath: Press L t d . ~ l 9 7 0 7 x  with Oriel  100  •Chora e s s , M.H. , Rittenhouse, CH. & Heald, B.C. Decision processes and information needs in education: a field survey. Berkley: Far West Laboratory for Educational R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t , 1968. • C h o r n e s s , M.H., Rittenhouse, C H . 6 H e a l d , B.C. Use o f r e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l and d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e d u c a t i o n a l innovation:^ A literature saryey. Berkley: Far West L a b o r a t o r y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t , 1969. Coney, R., P l a s k e t t , V., Boggenbuck, fi. & Hood, P. E d u c a t i o n a l MS i f i f o g s a t i o n sy.st.em r e g u i r e m e n t S i A t a s k force report^. Berkley: Far West L a b o r a t o r y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t , 1968. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 022 441) •Crane, D. Information needs and Annual review of information (Vol.6). Chicago: Encyclopaedia  u s e s . I n C. A. C u a d r a ( E d . ) , science and technology^ B r i t t a n i c a , Inc., 1971.  • C u a d r a , C. I n t r o d u c t i o n . In C A . Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology^ (Vol. 1). Chicago: Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i c a , Inc., 1966. Debons, A. (Ed.) York: M a r c e l  I n f o r m a t i o n science,, s e a r c h Dekker, Inc., 1972.  •Elias, A.W. (Ed.) Washington, D.C: Science, 1971.  Key The  papers American  f o r identity..  New  in information science.. Society for Information  Fairthorne, R.A. The morphology o f " i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w . " In T. Saracevic (Ed.), I n t r o d u c t i o n to i n f o r m a t i o n science. New Y o r k : fi.R. Bowker Company, 1970. Fenichel, C. (Ed.) Changing p a t t e r n s Washington, D.C: The American Science, 1973. Fry,  in information retrieval.. Society for Information  B.M. Evaluation study of ERIC p r o d u c t s and s e r v i c e s . . Summary volume f i n a l r e p o r t . B l o o m i n g t o n , I n d i a n a : Indiana UniversityT 1972. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 060 922)  G a r f i e l d , E. society. Science,  I n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and t h e Journal of the American 1971, 22 7*1-73.  information-conscious Society of Information  S a r v e y , W.G. & G r i f f i t h , B.C. S t u d i e s of s o c i a l i n n o v a t i o n s in scientific communication in psychology. American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1966, 21. 1019-1035. x  101  • H a v e l o c k , R.G. D i s s g m i n a t i q n and t r a n s l a t i o n r o l . e s i n e d u c a t i o n and other fields: a comparative analysis. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1967. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 015 535) • H a v e l o c k , R.G. P l a n n i n g f o r i n n o v a t i o n : a c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y the literature on t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n * ^ and u t i l i z a t i o n s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e . Ann A r b o r , Michigan: University Michigan, 1969. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. 029 1 71)  of of of" ED  H a v e l o c k , R.G. The utilisation of educational research and development. British Journal o f E d u c a t i o n a l T_echnolo£y 1971, 2 84-98.  x  X  H e i l p r i n , L.B. On the information D o c u m e n t a t i o n , 1961, _12 6-14.  problem  ahead.  x  American ~*  Heilpria, L.B. & Goodman, F . L . A n a l o g y between i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l and e d u c a t i o n . A m e r i c a n D o c u m e n t a t i o n ^ 1965, J_6 163-169  X  Heilprin, L.B., Markuson, B.E. & Goodman, F.L. Education f o r information science. Washington, S p a r t a n B o o k s , 1965.  (Eds.). D.C:  Heilprin, L. On a c c e s s t o knowledge i n t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s and humanities from the viewpoint of cybernetics and information sciences. 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e s No. ED 075 046) • H e r n e r , S. I n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g h a b i t s o f w o r k e r s i n pure and applied science. Industrial and E n g i n e e r i n g Chemistry 1 954, ±6j_ 228-236.  x  •Hood, P.D. S B l a c k w e l l , L . The e d u c a t i o n a l information market study San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a : F a r West L a b o r a t o r y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t , 1976. L  Hood, P.D. How r e s e a r c h and d e v e l o p m e n t on e d u c a t i o n a l roles and i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s can f a c i l i t a t e communication. J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h and Development i n E d u c a t i o n , 1974. 6 96-113. X  Information r e t r i e v a l i n action.. C l e v e l a n d , Western R e s e r v e U n i v e r s i t y , 1963.  O h i o : The P r e s s o f  Ifif2Il§tion s y s t e m s workshop^ t h e d e s i g n e r ' s r e s p p n s i b i l i t y and h i s methodology,, W a s h i n g t o n D . C : S p a r t a n B o o k s , 1962.  102  Kelman, H.C. C o m p l i a n c e , three processes of R e s o l u t i o n , 1958, 2 X  K e r t e s z , F. The (Ed.) , Key Information  identification and internalization; attitude change. J o u r n a l of C o n f l i c t 51-60.  Information Center Concept. In A.W. Elias papers i n i n f o r m a t i o n science.. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Company o f A m e r i c a , 1971.  * K i n g , D.W. & P a l m o u r , V.E. User b e h a v i o r . I n C. F e n i c h e l ( E d . ) , Changing patterns in information retrie val. Washington D.C.: American S o c i e t y f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e , 1974. Knox, W.T. Effective 1274-1275.  use  of i n f o r m a t i o n . S c i e n c e  *Kochen, M. S t a b i l i t y in the growth D o c u m e n t a t i o n 1969, 2 0 186-197.  of  1958,  f  knowledge.  1.33  x  American  x  •Kochen, M. Melville  Principles of i n f o r m a t i o n P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1974.  • K r a t h w o h l , D.R., Bloom, B. & educational objectives: D a v i d MeKay, 1964.  retrieval, ^  Los  Angeles:  Masia, B. (Eds.), Taxonomy of the affective domain. New York:  K u e h l , P.S. M a r k e t i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s f o r "ERIC-like" systems. Journal of the American S o c i e t y of S c i e n c e 19 72 2 3 351-364.  information Information  x  • K u g e l , P. I f t e c h n o l o g y i s the answer, what i s t h e q u e s t i o n ? I n C. Fenichel (Ed.), Changing patterns in information retrieval. Washington D.C. : American Society for Information Science, 1974. L e g g a t e , P. P r o b l e m s o f t h e 527-532.  individual  user.  ASLIB  •Licklider, J.C.R. A crux in scientific c o m m u n i c a t i o n . A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1966, Lin,  1971,  23  x  and technical 2 _ l 1044-1051. x  N. & G a r v e y , W.D. Information needs and uses. In C.A. Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and technology, ( V o l . 1). W a s h i n g t o n D . C . T A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y f o r Information Science, 1972.  • L i n e , M.B. Information reguirements in the social sciences: some preliminary considerations. Journal of L i b r a r i a n s h i p , 1969, I 1-19. x  103  • L i n e , M,:B. The i n f o r m a t i o n u s e s and n e e d s o f s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s : an o v e r v i e w o f INFfiOSS. ASLIB 1971, 23, 412-434,: L i n s k y , A,S. S t i m u l a t i n g r e s p o n s e s t o m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : r e v i e w . P u b l i c O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 1975, 3 9 82-101.  a  A  Lipetz, B. Information n e e d s and u s e s . I n C.A* Cuadra (Ed*), A n n u a l r e v i e w o f i n f o r m a t i o n - s c i e n c e and technology,,. ( V o l ; 5 ) , C h i c a g o : E n c y c l o p a e d i a B r i t t a n i c a , I n c . , 1970. •Lipetz, B. American  Information storage S e p t . 1966, 224-242.  and  retrieval.  Scientific  y  • M a r t y n , J . I n f o r m a t i o n n e e d s and u s e s . I n CA. Cuadra (Ed,;), Annual review, o f in.f orm.ation. s c i e n c e and t e c h n o l o g y ^ ( V o l . 9 ) , C h i c a g o : E n c y c l o p a e d i a B r i t t a n i q a , I n c * , 1974. • M e n z e l | H . Review o f studj.es i n t h e f l o w o f information s c i e n t i s t s . New Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1960. •Menzel, H. Information needs and uses in technology, In CA. Cuadra (Ed.) > Annual information s c i e n c e and technology, (Vol: E n c y c l o p a e d i a B r i t t a n i c a , I n c . , 1966.  among,  science and review of 4) ,1 C h i c a g o :  • M e n z e l , H. S c i e n t i f i c c o m m u n i c a t i o n : f i v e , themes from social science r e s e a r c h . American Psychologist 1966, 21^ 9991004, T  • M i k u l e c k y , L. The development,,, f i e l d testing^ and initial n o r m i n q o f a s e c o n d a r y / a d u l t l e v e l r e a d i n q a t t i t u d e measure that i s behaviorally oriented and ""based on K r a t h w o h l ^ s taxonomy o f t h e a f f e c t i v e domain. Doctoral Dissertation: University of W i s c o n s i n . 1976, Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n : X e r o x University Microfilms, 1976. •Murdock, J.W. transfer.  & L i s t o n , D.M, A general model A m e r i c a n D o c u m e n t a t i o n j 1967 18^  of information 197-208;  O'Connor, J. Some questions concerning " i n f o r m a t i o n need". American Documentation 1968, 19^ 200-203. • P a i s l e y , W.J. I n f o r m a t i o n n e e d s and u s e s . I n C A ; Cuadra A n n u a l r e v i e w o f i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e and t e c h n o l o g y , 3 ) . C h i c a g o : E n c y c l o p a e d i a B r i t t a n i c a , I n c * , 1968.  (Ed.) (Vol  104  •Paisley, W. Improving a f i e l d - b a s e d "ERIC l i k e " system. J o u r n a l of the American Society for S c i e n c e , 1971, 2 2 399-408.  information information  x  •Paisley, W. Final technical report: developing network f o r information needs i n education* C a l i f o r n i a : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y . 1972,.  a  :  sensing Stanford,  •Parker, J. & Paisley, W. Research f o r p s y c h o l o g i s t s at the i n t e r f a c e o f the scientist and his information system. A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1966, 2V 1061-1071. L  •Price, D . J . De S. A c a l c u l u s o f s c i e n c e * and T e c h n o l o g y . March, 1963, 37-43.  International  Science  •Rees, A.M. I n f o r m a t i o n needs and pattern of usage. In I n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l i n a c t i o n . . C l e v e l a n d , O h i o : The P r e s s o f W e s t e r n R e s e r v e U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. Resnick A. & Hensley, C,B. The use o f d i a r y and i n t e r v i e w technigues i n evaluating a system for disseminating technical information. American D o c u m e n t a t i o n ^ 1962, 14 109-116. f  • R i t t e n h o u s e , C,H* I n n o v a t i o n p r o b l e m s and i n f o r m a t i o n needs of e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s * Menlo P a r k , C a l i f o r n i a : S t a n f o r d Research Institute, 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No* ED 040 976) Salton> the  S. On t h e d e v l o p m e n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e * American S o c i e t y f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e ^  218-220T  • Saracevic, T. (Ed*) Introduction to Y o r k : R.fi. Bowker Company, 1970.  information  Journal of 1973, 24 1  science*  New  • S a r a c e v i c , T. S e l e c t e d r e s u l t s from an i n q u i r y i n t o t e s t i n g of information retrieval systems. Journal of the American S o c i e t y f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e , 1971, 22; 126-139. • S c i e n c e C o u n c i l o f Canada* R e p o r t #6. A p o l i c y for and t e c h n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n , O t t a w a : o f Canada, 1969. r  scientific Government  105  Science Council o f Canada* R e p o r t #7 T h e - r o l e of the f e d e r a l government i n s u p p o r t o f r e s e a r c h i n C a n a d i a n u n i v e r s i t i e s i . O t t a w a : Government o f C a n a d a , 1969. X  :  • S c i e n c e C o u n c i l o f Canada., S p e c i a l S£udy #8. Scientific technical information in Canada.. P a r t II. Chapter U n i v e r s i t i e s ^ C h a p t e r 6. L i b r a r i e s . O t t a w a : Government Canada, 1 9 6 9 7 •Shera, J.H. D o c u m e n t a t i o n and t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n London: C r o s b y Lockwbod S Sons, L t d . , 1966.. •Shera, J,*H. science* Science,  of  The sociological r e l a t i o n s h i p s of Journal of the American S o c i e t y f o r 19^1, 2 2 76-88;  and 3 of  knowledge.. information Information  x  S h o r t , E.C. Knowledge p r o d u c t i o n and u t i l i z a t i o n i n , c u r r i c u l u m : a special case of the general phenomenon; Review of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1973, 4 3 237-301, x  Simonton, W., ( E d * ) , Information r e t r i e v a l today; Minnesota: U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1963.  Minneapolis,  Summers, E.G. E s t a b l i s h i n g the Canadian studies education information system JCSEI5).: Planning phase preliminary d r a f t . V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a : 1972* x  Summers, E.G. I n f o r m a t i o n and b i b l i o g r a p h i c n e e d s in Canadian e d u c a t i o n . 1974. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No* ED 101 746) Summers, E.G. Canadian educational i n f ormatign: Some perspectives and sources on system design,: Vancouver, British Columbia: 1974a, (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No* ED 101 747) Summers, E.G. I n s t r u m e n t s f o r a s s e s s i n g reading attitudes: a review of research and b i b l i o g r a p h y , J o u r n a l of R e a d i n g B e h a v i o r , 1977, 9 137-165. X  • T o r g e r s o n , W.S. T h e o r y and methods o f s c a l i n g * Wiley & Sons, I n c . , 1962. •Triandis, Wiley  H,C. Attitude and & Sons, I n c . , 1971.  V i s o n h a l e r , J . F , & Moon, R.D. in education; In CA. information science and Encyclopaedia B r i t t a n i c a ,  New  a t t i t u d e change*. New  York: York:  John John  I n f o r m a t i o n systems applications Cuadra (Ed.), Annual review of technology, (Vol. 8). Chicago: Inc;, 1973,  106  Wall, E. A r a t i o n a l e f o r a t t a c k i n g information A m e r i c a n D o c u m e n t a t i o n 1967, 18, 97-103.  problems.  •Weinberg, A l v i n M. S c i e n t i f i c communication; I n A.W. Elias, (Ed.), Key p a p e r s i n information science; Philadelphia: I n f o r m a t i o n Company o f A m e r i c a , 1971. •Weisman, H. I n f o r m a t i o n systems^ services Y o r k : B e c k e r and Hayes, I n c . , 1972.  and  centers.  New  Whittemore, B.J. & Yovics, M.C. A generalized conceptual development f o r the a n a l y s i s and f l o w of information. Journal o f t h e American Society, f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S g i e n e e ^ 1973, 24^ 221-231. Winn, V.A. A c a s e study i n t h e problems of information p r o c e s s i n g i n a s o c i a l s c i e n c e f i e l d . The OSTI-SEA p r o j e c t . ASLIB 1972, 23, 76-88. •Wood, D.N. D i s c o v e r i n g t h e u s e r and h i s i n f o r m a t i o n ASLIB P r o c e e d i n g s , 1969, 2 2 262-270.  needs; I n  x  •Wood, D.N. O s e r s t u d i e s : a r e v i e w o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e 70. A S L I B , 1972, 2 3 11-23.  from  1966-  x  Wright, K. Social science information c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with particular reference to the Educational Resources I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t e r s (ERIC); J o u r n a l o f t h e American Society, f o r I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e , 1973, 2 4 193-204. x  Ziraan, J.M. Information, communication, knowledge. I n T. Saracevic (Ed.), I n t r o d u c t i o n t o i n f o r m a t i o n science, New Y o r k : R.R. Bowker Co., 1970. Ziman, J.M,. P u b l i c P r e s s , 1968.  knowledge,  Cambridge  at  the University  APPENDIX A  Pilot  Study  Questionnaire  SURVEY OF THE INFORMATION OF  NEEDS  EDUCATORS  P i l o t study June 1977  Introd uction  This i s a pilot study f o r a survey of the information needs of educators. From t h i s s t u d y we hope t o l e a r n a b o u t t h e p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e s o f e d u c a t o r s when th<?y look f o r answers to t h e i r educational questions. I n t h i s s u r v e y , " i n f o r a a t i o n " means s p o k e n or w r i t t e n f a c t s o r o p i n i o n s , and " s o u r c e s " r e f e r s t o people, printed m a t e r i a l o r p l a c e s where i n f o r m a t i o n can be f o u n d .  for  You w i l l n o t i c e t h a t t h e r e i s no s p a c e provided your name. A l l r e s p o n s e s w i l l be anonymous.  Thank you f o r c o m p l e t i n g Please keep the enclosed pen appreciation.  this as  questionnaire. a token of  J—LU  SURVEY K  OF I N F O R M A T I O N  NEEDS  OF EDUCATORS  Position:.  If your work involves more t h a n o n e p l e a s e check the a p p r o p r i a t e c o m b i n a t i o n .  Elementary  school  of  teacher  these  1  r ] J  i  Junior  or  secondary  school  teacher  1  I  . . . . » i  Principal  or  vice  positions,  I 1  1  I  principal  *r  Support person i n a school (librarian, counsellor, LAC t e a c h e r , etc  | *r  District administrator, superintendent,) or a s s i s t a n t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t  L  r  D i s t r i c t support person supervisor, researcher,  As. Work  (consultant, etc.)  < *-  activities:  Needs f o r i n f o r m a t i o n a r e a f f e c t e d by t h e n a t u r e o f the •fork one d o e s . To h e l p u s i d e n t i f y t h e q e n e r a l nature of your work, p l e a s e c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g types of a c t i v i t i e s . If you are i n v o l v e d in s i g n i f i c a n t a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a r e not i n c l u d e d in the list, p l e a s e w r i t e a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f them on t h e line provided. Please check the a p p r o p r i a t e approximate percentage of time you followinq activities.  column spend  to at  indicate each of  the the  Ill  of iork  activities  —T  none  010%  time  10-  spent T~  3060%  over 60%  4  A. d e t e r m i n i n g needs a n d / o r i n g g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s B. c u r r i c u l u m p l a n n i n g , and i m p l e m e n t i n g : . d e v e l o p i n g or f o r classroom  D.classroom  establish,  developing,  selecting use  materials  teaching  E.evaluation programs  of  personnel  or  F.personnel matters ( h i r i n g , s c h e d u l i n g negotiating,administering) ,  j.financial  matters  -i  (budgets)  a.facilities (planning,acquiring, scheduling, maintaining ) I . l i a i s o n ( w i t h community, governments ) J.consulting others  with  or  K.conducting  research  boards,or  advising  studies  L.support s e r v i c e s (planning, maintaining, scheduling) ... M.preparing reports  articles,  speeches,  N.counselling  +  students  •.providing (planning  in-service or g i v i n g )  P . l e g a l or concerns  legislative ............  Q.others  4-  r  training ,  Y  c  +  +  i  112  3i. E x g ^ r i e n c e . L A p p r o x i m a t e l y how many y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e do you have?  of  professional  educational  years.  i i . Sense  of i s o l a t i o n ^  How would you d e s c r i b e your d e g r e e o f i s o l a t i o n from t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s you would l i k e t o u s e ? ( P l e a s e check one.)  not i s o l a t e d ; t o any s o u r c e  I have r e a d y a c c e s s I need  i  I  I  I J  i  •—'  somewhat i s o l a t e d ; I may have t o spend a l i t t l e t i m e and e f f o r t t o f i n d what I want  I 1  I I I J  i  1  c o n s i d e r a b l y i s o l a t e d ; I sometimes forego usinq information sources I- would l i k e t o use  ) I '  | |  seriously isolated; I seldom g e t t o s o u r c e s I would l i k e t o use  I I -  L  J  113  Educatigru Please  check y o u r  High  highest  earned  degree. ( I  1 I  *  J  School  1  I  I  '  Bachelor's  —  _  I  -  J  I ~ l . . . «J  Master's  T  I  Doctorate Other  Oj_ I n f o r m a t i o n  (please  I  t  i  J  specify)  j  I  d i s s e m i n a t i o n j_  How o f t e n do c o l l e a g u e s e i t h e r come t o you f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o r do you g i v e s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n t o them?  several at  least  t i m e s a day  i  1  I  >  .-.......«-  J  I  T •  once d a i l y  educational  J  i  1  I  about  once  a week  -.  L  i 1  i  1  I  I  about o n c e a month  . . . . . . . . . . *i  less  t h a n o n c e a month  '  J  1  1 J  114  T-s. Resggnse t o  inforraation:.  Listed helow are i n d i c a t i n g how much each  fifteen statements. s t a t e m e n t i s l i k e you  P l e a s e respond o r u n l i k e you.  by  F o r " v e r y u n l i k e you" p l e a s e c i r c l e t h e number 1. F o r "a l i t t l e l i k e you " p l e a s e c i r c l e number 2 . F o r " m o d e r a t e l v l i k e you" c i r c l e 3 . For " v e r y l i k e y o u " c i r c l e 4. F o r example, i f you o f t e n c u t out a r t i c l e s f r o m newspapers and p a s s them on t o y o u r c o l l l e a q u e s , you would likely c i r c l e 3 i n t h i s example^ You have read an a r t i c l e t h a t w i l l be h e l p f u l t o you i n y o u r work. You would make an e f f o r t t o share the information with your c o l l e a g u e s . very unlike 1.  Colleagues matters. very unlike  3.  me  .2  often 1  3  come t o you  4  very like  f o r i n f o r m a t i o n on  2  3  4  1  2  3  to read  1  2  3  me  -journal a r t i c l e s  4  me  me  educational very like  me  me  U  ,  very like  or  me  your first the t o p i c . very like  me  You are aware t h a t t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l - j o u r n a l s t h a t c o n t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t y o u r l i n e o f work. very unlike  6.  1 me  When you a r e f a c e d w i t h an e d u c a t i o n a l problem, move i s t o l o c a t e r e l e v a n t b o o k s or a r t i c l e s on very unlike  5.  very like  You encourage other educators books on e d u c a t i o n a l m a t t e r s . very unlike  H.  2  You are l e a f i n g t h r o u q h a magazine or newspaper and n o t i c e an a r t i c l e on e d u c a t i o n . You s t a r t to r e a d t h e a r t i c l e . very unlike  2.  1 me  1  2  3  4  me  Your p r i n c i p a l or s u p e r v i s o r o f f e r s you a copy page article and s u g g e s t s t h a t i t may be o f You d e c i d e t o r e a d i t . very unlike  1 me  2  3  4  very like  me  of a three value to you.  very like  me  115  7.  You r e a d or about week).  j o u r n a l s o r books about q e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l m a t t e r s your own s p e c i a l t y f a i r l y o f t e n , ( s e v e r a l t i a e s a  very unlike 3.  You have newsletter very unlike  9.  1  me  You would package of  2  article  3  for a professional  4  very like  your own work would be i m p r o v e d sources of i n f o r m a t i o n . 2  3  4  1  2  3  me  i f you  had  very like BIG materials  4  very like  1  2  3  4  very like  me offer to information 1  research f o r your 2  a t o p i c and colleagues. 3  put  and  me  4  very like  rae  1  2  Your colleagues often educational information  4  1  send people t o you. 2  3  who 4  me  You s u b s c r i b e to one f i e l d of i n t e r e s t . very unlike  3  very like  me  1 me  or  are  very like  3  4  very like  a  me changes  me  looking  more p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s 2  me  together  You would f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o accept educational u n l e s s t h e y were s u p p o r t e d by f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n .  very unlike 15.  1  one  me  You r a g u l a r l y r e a d a s e c t i o n of a magazine or newspaper t h a t d e a l s - w i t h broad e d u c a t i o n a l matters or your s p e c i f i c areas of i n t e r e s t .  very unlike 14.  very like  me  very unlike 13.  4  You enjoy learning about new methods, t e c h n i q u e s r e l a t e d t o your work a c t i v i t i e s .  very unlike 12.  1  You b e l i e v e t h a t access to b e t t e r  very unlike 11.  3  written more t h a n or j o u r n a l .  very unlikerae 10.  2  me  for  me in  me  your  116  Educators need i n f o r m a t i o n f o r raanv d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e s . We would l i k e you t o i d e n t i f y , and r a n k i n order of importance, t2!2E 5>§J2£ p u r p o s e s f o r s e e k i n g e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Please write your purposes on the c h a r t p r o v i d e d on t h e n e x t p.3.22- 1° o r d e r t o h e l p you consider the broad range of a l t e r n a t i v e s , h e r e i s a l i s t o f s u g g e s t i o n s . I t i s not c o m p l e t e . You may c h o o s e from t h e l i s t , but p l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o use some o f y o u r own t h a t a r e not i n c l u d e d .  SUGGESTIONS I  seek i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f : g e t t i n g a g e n e r a l a w a r e n e s s of -general educational practices - t r e n d s and t h e o r i e s -learning theories l e a r n i n g about new methods o f -teaching -managi nq -evaluating -motivating -schedulin q finding specific facts for -classroom use - w r i t i n g r e p o r t s or papers - d e c i s i o n making -problem s o l v i n g -curriculum development g e t t i n g "how-to" i n f o r m a t i o n on - t e a c h i n g methods - m a t e r i a l s development f i n d i n g new -materials -sources -facilities -expert, p e o p l e  117  Please l i s t your purposes, t h a n 8 ) , on the l i n e s provided w r i t i n g numbers i n t h e b o x e s .  (at l e a s t 3 but not more b e l o w , and r a n k o r d e r them by 1 .2  M o s t im p o r t a n t n e x t most i m p o r t a n t and s o o n .  I  seek  information  f o r the purpose  of  Rank i  1  A  f-—4  B.  I  1  C  \—i  D  r—-I  E  \—i  7  \-—H  ..  G  I—I.  l H  -  ! ! L  '  118  ii.  Sources:  When y o u need educational information, there are many sources you can go to. P l e a s e r a t e the f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s in t e r m s o f how o f t e n y c u u s e their, t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n . Check Check Check Check  in in in in  column column column column  1 2 3 4  if if if if  you you you you  n e v e r use the source. r a r e l y use the source. s o m e t i m e s use t h s source. f r e q u e n t l y use the source.  I  use  this  H + I I I 1. W o r k s h o p s , c o u r s e s , or seminars I -) -fI I I 2. C o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h c o l l e a g u e s fH f I I I 3. A h s t r a c t s o r l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w s }-f l i t ! 4. D i s t r i c t o r s c h o o l l i b r a r y I 4 -I I I I 5 . Ed u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s | H + I I I 6 . E x p e r t s o u t s i d e my s c h o o l I+ -j I I I 7. Books o r t e x t b o o k s \-I -{ I I I 8. C o n v e n t i o n s o r m e e t i n g s I -! -i I I I 9. P u b l i c o r u n i v e r s i t v l i b r a r y ^ -{ ^ I I I 10. Computer or r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m s [• -j-——+ I I I 1 1 . B i b l i o g r a p h i e s or b o o k l i s t s \ -I + I I I 1 2 . U n p u b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s . . . . . . . . . . |-| + I I I 13. D i s s e r t a t i o n s o r t h e s e s I -i -)  Source  14.Curriculura 15.Others 16  r  materials  (guides,  manuals)  I | I f I '  I I -j I -I I J  -\ I + I •*  source  -I I ^ I -) I + H I H I H I + I H I 1 I 1I 4I -J I {I -i I -I I •  i 1 ^  119  10.  Characteristics  of  sources:  Different users have different criteria for judqinq information sources. Please consider the followinq l i s t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , please indicate how i m p o r t a n t i t i s t o you. Check Check Check Check  column column column column  1 2 3 U  i i i i  f f f f  i i i i  t t t t  i i i i  s s s s  o f no i m p o r t a n c e . of l i t t l e importance. guite important. one o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t .  Characteristic?;  Importance to  |~1 T  I  2  T~4  3  me )  y  4  j I  I \  I 4  I 4  1 •{  f  +  ^  1.1s near at available  hanri a r d  2.Ts  use  |-  -i  4  H  i  3.1s a u t h o r i t a t i v e , a c c u r a t e , r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e  I J  I -j  I -|  I 4  I -)  14. P r o v i d e s a v a r i e t v o f v i e w p o i n t s a n d / o r means f o r d i s c u s s i o n  I f  1 -)  1 4  I 1  I ^  5. P r o v i d e s a c c e s s w i t h o u t involving others  I }-  I 4  I f  I 4  I -1  6. Lea<1s me  I  ^  4  4  -J  f  4  4  4  -j  1 .|  i -)  I ^  1 4  I ^  9. O t h e r s  |-  4  4  +  ^  10.  t  1  1  1  J  7.is  ^asy  to  to o t h e r  f r e e or  usually  sources  inexpensive  8.1s c o m p l e t e , c o m p r e h e n s i v e anl up-to-date  120  l i s . EEQblems  IB. f i n d i n g  a n d using,  information;.  Certain problems exist i n f i n d i n g and u s i n g infortsation. P l e a s e c o n s i d e r each of t h e f o l l o w i n g problems and i n d i c a t e t h e iciount o f d i f f i c u l t y you have e x p e r i e n c e d f o r each. If If If If  you you you you  have have have have  had had had had  no d i f f i c u l t y , c h e c k i n c o l u m n 1. v e r y , l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y , c h e c k c o l u m n 2. c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y , check c o l u m n 3. e x t r e m e d i f f i c u l t y , c h e c k c o l u m n <4. Difficulty  ? roblems I  T  1.Finding  suitable  2.Finding  understandable  3.Getting  the information  4.Resolving 5.Getting  7.Financial  -j-  information  d i f f e r e n c e s between  6.Understanding  3.Finding  -h  quickly  I I  -1  -i  -j-  .  +  reports  f  costs  time t o look  ^  I I H  1  information  research  -I  I I  enough  reports  T  2 | 3 | 4 | H 1 -J -I  sources  up-to-date  1  T  1 I  I I  f o r information  f  I  9. U n d e r s t a n d i n g p r o c e d u r e s f o r g e t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from i n d e x e s , ERIC , e t c . 10. M a k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n to others  understandable  •+ +  11.Others  12.  i  i  + -I  1  1  J  121  lis.  I our ^ i d e a l ^  system:.  Assuming unrestricted financing and t e c h n i c a l know-how, what would you c o n s i d e r an i d e a l way of seeking and gettinq educational information?  Thank you for responding to t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y survey of i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d s . To h e l p us improve this guestionnaire, we would appreciate your comments on i t as a whole, or on any s p e c i f i c p r o b l e m s you had i n f i l l i n g i t o u t . Thanks.  APPENDIX B  Final  Study  Questionnaire  SURVEY OF THE  INFORMATION  OF  NEEDS  EDUCATORS  IN BRITISH  COLUMBIA  Introduction  This i s a educators; the present f o r answers  survey of the i n f o r m a t i o n needs o f From t h i s s t u d y we hope t o l e a r n a b o u t p r a c t i c e s o f e d u c a t o r s when t h e y look to t h e i r educational questions.  I n t h i s s u r v e y , "INFORMATION^ means spoken o r w r i t t e n f a c t s o r o p i n i o n s , and ^SOURCES^ r e f e r s t o people, printed material or places where i n f o r m a t i o n c a n be f o u n d .  You for  w i l l n o t i c e t h a t t h e r e i s no space provided y o u r name. A l l r e s p o n s e s w i l l be anonymous.  Thank you f o r c o m p l e t i n q  this  questionnaire,  125  SURVEY OF THE INFORMATION I. Ii. please  NEEDS OF EDUCATORS  DESCRIPTION OF THE USER*  Position: I f y o u r work i n v o l v e s more t h a n one o f t h e s e p o s i t i o n s , check t h e a p p r o p r i a t e combination.  T  i  i Elementary  school  teacher  l  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . «-  J  i  1  I  Junior  or secondary high  Secondary s c h o o l  school teacher  department  head  I  —•.  J  .......... r  1  1  Principal  or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l  ^elementary}.  Principal  o r v i c e - p r i n c i p a l i s e c o n d a r y ) . ...  i —i  i  I  i  I  I j  i  i—••  1I  i  - i  I ..'  S u p p o r t p e r s o n i n an e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l ( l i b r a r i a n , c o u n s e l l o r , LAC t e a c h e r ^ e t c * )  •  Support person i n a secondary s c h o o l I ( l i b r a r i a n , c o u n s e l l o r , LAC t e a c h e r , e t c . ) .. * —  I '  i—•  D i s t r i c t administrator, (superintendent, I or a s s i s t a n t superintendent) .....*..*.......'—  1  :  I  D i s t r i c t support person supervisor, researcher, if  you  T  I '  are a teacher p l e a s e i n d i c a t e t h e g r a d e : o r g r a d e s you are teaching this term by checking a l l the a p p r o p r i a t e boxes* K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (IO 11 12 t  I  T  I  _J  I  If  (consultant, j e t c * ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *~  1 •  1  1  1  I  T  T  I  I  I  I  -T  I  -^1  I  a  I  1  T  T—'  1  I  i  I  I  I  1  I  T  T"  1  X  L  i  I  I  you a r e a d i s t r i c t p e r s o n , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e t h e work w h i c h t a k e s up t h e l a r g e s t p o r t i o n o f y o u r time;:  I activity  i  Assisting  teachers  '  j  i —  Supervising  teachers  1  — i  •  Administrative duties I am employed  1  ..........................  —-'  i n the .................. s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . :  126  3i  Experience:  A p p r o x i m a t e l y how many y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e do y o u have? ....... iii the  of  professional  educational  years  Sense o f i s o l a t i o n  How would you d e s c r i b e your degree o f i s o l a t i o n from i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s y o u would l i k e t o use? P l e a s e c h e c k o n e . 1  i  I  I  Not i s o l a t e d ; I have r e a d y a c c e s s j t o any s o u r c e I n e e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  I  J  J  i  Somewhat i s o l a t e d : I may h a v e t o spend a l i t t l e t i m e and e f f o r t t o f i n d what I want  r  — i  J I  I I ' 1 I I  t  i  C o n s i d e r a b l y i s o l a t e d : I sometimes forego using information sources I would l i k e t o u s e Seriously isolated: I seldom g e t t o sources I would l i k e t o use ..... i , , 5,. L e v e l  I I 1  1  i  1 I I I I -  ...,.......<  J  of education  Please  check your h i g h e s t  earned academic degree. 1  a  I  High School  o....................... «—  j  I  •  —  i  i  I Bachelor s 1  .................................. — • rr^ L  I 1  1  I  M a s t er * s  " •:  Doctorate  Other  I  r ~  I I  ......................................'  (please  specify)  1  1 J  r ] 1  127  6,  Information  dissemination  How often do colleagues either come to you e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o r do you g i v e s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n t o  L e s s t h a n o n c e a month  .................... i  1  .  n  L  ' "  At  least  I  i  once a week  ,  once d a i l y  '  "  .....  i 1  i  i J  I I  i i  i —  —  I I I  Several  Is.  t i m e s a day  Attitude to  ......................... i  For articles  i  I -  -i  information:  On the next two pages there are f i f t e e n a b o u t i n f o r m a t i o n . P l e a s e r e s p o n d by i n d i c a t i n g how s t a t e m e n t i s l i k e you o r u n l i k e you. For For For For  I i  1  I  About  I  J  , I I  I  About o n c e a month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  I  for them?  v e r y u n l i k e you, p l e a s e c i r c l e the:number a l i t t l e u n l i k e you, p l e a s e c i r c l e number m o d e r a t e l y l i k e you, c i r c l e 3. v e r y l i k e you, c i r c l e 4.  statements much each 1. 2*  e x a m p l e , i f you o f t e n t e l l c o l l e a g u e s a b o u t i n t e r e s t i n g you have r e a d , you would c i r c l e 3 i n t h i s example*  You have read an , a r t i c l e t h a t work* You would make an e f f o r t t o your c o l l e a g u e s . Very unlike  1 me  2  w i l l be share 3  h e l p f u l t o you i n the information 4  Very like  your with  me  128  1. You a r e l e a f i n g t h r o u g h a magazine o r newspaper and n o t i c e a r t i c l e on e d u c a t i o n * You s t a r t t o r e a d t h e a r t i c l e . Very unlike  1  2  3  2. C o l l e a g u e s o f t e n come t o you matters. Very unlike  4  Very like  me  me  1  2  for information 3  on  4  an  me  educational Very like  me  3. . I f you have to make an i m p o r t a n t c u r r i c u l u m o r c l a s s r o o m d e c i s i o n , y o u r f i r s t s t e p would be t o f i n d an e x p e r t person or some good printed m a t e r i a l ( a r t i c l e s , books) t o h e l p you make your d e c i s i o n . Very unlike  1  2  3  4  Very like  me  me  4. You a r e aware t h a t t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l j o u r n a l s and books that contain articles and i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t e d u c a t i o n i n g e n e r a l o r a b o u t y o u r s p e c i f i c f i e l d of work. Very unlike  1  2  3  4  Very like  me  me  5. a c o l l e a g u e you r e s p e c t o f f e r s you a c o p y of a three page article and s u g g e s t t h a t you might f i n d i t h e l p f u l . You d e c i d e to r e a d i t . Very unlike  1  2  6. I f you f o u n d an a r t i c l e of your colleagues, you him o r h e r . Very unlike  3  Very like  1  2  3  4  Very like  me  1 me  2  me  o r book t h a t you f e l t would h e l p one would recommend i t o r o f f e r a c o p y t o  7. You h a v e w r i t t e n a r t i c l e s matters. Very unlike  4  me  o r g i v e n workshops  3  4  on  me  educational  Very like.me  1  129  8. You r e a d j o u r n a l s o r b o o k s a b o u t g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l m a t t e r s o r y o u r own s u b j e c t a r e a f a i r l y o f t e n , ( a t l e a s t two or three t i m e s a month) . Very unlike  1  2  , 3  4  Very like  me  me  9. You l o o k f o r w a r d t o a t t e n d i n g a workshop o r h e a r i n g a s p e a k e r a b o u t an e d u c a t i o n a l t o p i c o r p r o b l e m t h a t i n t e r e s t s y o u . Very unlike  1  2  3  10; You regularly discuss educational other educators. Very unlike 11.  You  1  2 t o two  3  4  1  1  Very like  2  3  4  Very like  a s e c t i o n o f a magazine o r newspaper matters; 2  3  4  Very like  me  1  issues  me with  me  o r more p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s ;  13;.You would o f f e r t o r e s e a r c h p a c k a g e o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r your Very unlike  p r o b l e m s and  me  12. You r e g u l a r l y r e a d d e a l s with e d u c a t i o n a l Very unlike  Very like  me  subscribe  Very unlike  4  me  2  a topic and colleagues. 3  put  4  that  me  together  Very like  me  me  a  me  14. You believe that your own work would be i m p r o v e d i f you could f i n d the r i g h t people t o t a l k t o or the r i g h t m a t e r i a l s t o read. Very unlike  1  15. Your c o l l e a g u e s i n f o r m a t i o n t o you; Very unlike  2  3  4  Very like  me  1 me  often 2  send  people 3  who 4  are  me  looking Very like  for  me  130  II  User i n f o r m a t i o n s e e k i n g l i  behavior  Purposes f o r seeking  information  Below i s a list of f i f t e e n purposes f o r seeking information. FIRST: Check t h e a p p r o p r i a t e column t o i n d i c a t e how frequently you s e e k i n f o r m a t i o n f o r e a c h o f t h e p u r p o s e s l i s t e d . Check column 1 i f you seldom o r never seek i n f o r m a t i o n f o r that purpose, C h e c k c o l u m n 2 i f you s o m e t i m e s s e e k information f o r that purpose. Check column 3 i f i t i s a purpose f o r which you f r e q u e n t l y seek i n f o r m a t i o n . """ NEXT: F o r e a c h o f t h e p u r p o s e s f o r w h i c h y o u m a r k e d c o l u i g n Ir please list their rank order o f i m p o r t a n c e t o y o u . (1=most i m p o r t a n t , 2= n e x t most i m p o r t a n t , e t c * ) P l a c e t h e s e r a n k s c o r e s i n t h e c o l u m n l a b e l l e d "RANK" Frequency  Purposes  T  1, T e a c h i n q t e c h n i q u e s 2. F i n d i n q new  - H  ,.  materials —I  3. F a c t s f o r c l a s s r o o m u s e 4. G e n e r a l a w a r e n e s s o f t r e n d s , t h e o r i e s ........... ........  —+  H  i  —1  I  —  I  5. M o t i v a t i o n 6. C u r r i c u l u m  development  7. D e v e l o p i n q  new  8* E v a l u a t i o n  .......  .,  r  I f-  materials  - r ~  I  H  i  ....  -+-  9,i F i n d i n q new s o u r c e s , e x p e r t s ., 10. P e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l development 11. D e c i s i o n m a k i n g a n d p r o b l e m solving 12. C l a s s r o o m management  ............  13. W r i t i n g r e p o r t s , a r t i c l e s 14. S t u d e n t s w i t h  special  .......  I  p r o b l e m s ...  15. P u b l i c r e a c t i o n s a n d c o n c e r n s . , , . .  L  +—  r  H  ^  I I I  131  2. Sourcesi. when you need e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e are many sources you can go t o . Please r a t e the f o l l o w i n g sources i n terms of how o f t e n you use them to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n . Check i n column 1 i f you never use t h i s source. Check i n column 2 i f you r a r e l y use t h i s source. (once o r t w i c e a year.) Check i n column 3 i f you sometimes use t h i s source* (once o r twice a month) . Check i n column 4 i f you use t h i s source freguently. ( s e v e r a l times a week) . Source  I use t h i s  source I 3  1, Workshops, courses 2. Conversations  and seminars ,..  -•  with c o l l e a g u e s .....  3. Notes, f i l e s , b o o k i n my o f f i c e 4. A b s t r a c t s , indexes, book l i s t s or b i b l i o g r a p h i e s 5,: School 6, 7,  or d i s t r i c t  y  libraries  I +  +  V  12. Research r e p o r t s or d i s s e r t a i o n s .  r —  (guides,etc.)  (please s p e c i f y ) ..,  H  I -+I  -j  I  9. Conventions or meetings 10. P u b l i c or u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s .............. 11. Computer or r e t r i e v a l sy s t em s ...... 3 . £.  14, Other  H  I  8. Books or textbooks  materials  —I  -I  I  E d u c a t i o n a l j o u r n a l s ..... Experts o u t s i d e my s c h o o l or d i s t r i c t ..............  13. Curriculum  |4  ....  -  I I  -j  132  3.. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of  sources.  Different users have different c r i t e r i a for judging information sources. Please consider the following l i s t of characteristics, and f o r each o f them i n d i c a t e how i m p o r t a n t i t i s t o you. Check Check Check Check  column 1 i f column 2 i s column 3 i f column 4 i f  i i i i  t t t t  i i i i  s s s s  o f no importance. on l i t t l e i m p o r t a n c e * quite important. very important. Importance t o  Characteristics  i  I  1  I  T  2  I  3  me i  I  4  T  |  4  1. I s n e a r a t hand and u s u a l l y a v a i l a b l e ..  +  2.  I s easy  -I  3.  Is authorative, accurate, r e l i a b l e and o b j e c t i v e ...  4.  P r o v i d e s a v a r i e t y of view p o i n t s o r d i s c u s s i o n ......  5, i  Provides access without i n v o l v i n q o t h e r s ...,.».  6.  L e a d s me  7.  I s r e s p o n s i v e t o my p a r t i c u l a r problem  8.  Keeps me aware o f new d e v e l o p m e n t s -  9.  Is f r e e or  to  to  use  other  sources  inexpensive  10.  Is complete, comprehensive, and u p - t o - d a t e  11.  I s l i k e l y t o have t h e i n f o r m a t i o n I want .,.  12.  Others  (please specify)  —M-  h  -I  1  133  4. P r o b l e m s  in finding  and  using  information  Certain problems exist in finding and using i n f o r m a t i o n * P l e a s e c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o b l e m s and i n d i c a t e t h e amount o f d i f f i c u l t y y_ou have e x p e r i e n c e d w i t h e a c h . If If If If  you you you you  have had have had have had have had  no p r o b l e m , c h e c k i n column 1. v e r y l i t t l e p r o b l e m , c h e c k i n column 2. c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y , c h e c k i n 3. e x t r e m e d i f f i c u l t y , c h e c k i n c o l u m n 4. Difficulty  Problems  i  I 1 r —  1. L o c a t i n g 2.  suitable  Knowing how t o use EfilC e t c . ,  indexes, ,.  the information enough  4.  Getting  up-to-date material  5.  Understanding research r e p o r t s or s t a t i s t i c a l analyses  6*  Financial costs  I—  |  n  -I  i I  -»  to  F i n d i n q time t o look f o r or r e a d i n f o r m a t i o n  9. Makinq i n f o r m a t i o n under standable to others 10, E e s o l v i n q d i f f e r e n c e s between r e p o r t s *.....  4  I—  3. G e t t i n g guickly  8.  I  2  H  (-  sources  7, L a c k o f q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l help l o c a t e information  I  f o r me*  i  134  III  Your " i d e a l "  system-  A s s u m i n g u n r e s t i c t e d f i n a n c i n g and t e c h n i c a l know-how, what would you consider an ideal way of seeking and getting educational information?  Thank you f o r y o u r  help.  135  APPENDIX C  D e f i n i t i o n s of K r a t h w o h l ' s s t a g e s and t h e r e p r e s e n t i n g e a c h s t a g e from t h e p r o p o s e d questionnaire.  items final  136 I.  ATTENDING  D e f i n i t i o n : A c o n t i n u u m o f r e c e i v i n g a phenomenon. The c o n t i n u u m e x t e n d s f r o m p a s s i v e a w a r e n e s s o f t h e phenomenon through selfd i r e c t e d a t t e n t i o n toward the s t i m u l i (Krathwohl, p.99). Items: 4, * You a r e aware t h a t t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l j o u r n a l s and books c o n t a i n a r t i c l e s and i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t e d u c a t i o n i n g e n e r a l a b o u t y o u r s p e c i f i c f i e l d of work. I. You a r e a r t i c l e on  l e a f i n g t h r o u g h a magazine o r newspaper and e d u c a t i o n * You s t a r t t o r e a d t h e a r t i c l e .  10, You r e g u l a r l y d i s c u s s e d u c a t i o n a l p r o b l e m s and other educators*  that and  notice  issues  an  with  I I . .RESPONDING D e f i n i t i o n : A continuum of responding to a phenomenon. The continuum extends from obedient acquiescence of response, through freely willed response, to emotional pleasure or s a t i s f a c t i o n i n response (Krathwohl, p.118). Items: 5. A colleague you r e s p e c t o f f e r s you a copy o f a t h r e e . p a g e a r t i c l e and s u g g e s t s t h a t you m i g h t f i n d i t h e l p f u l . You decide to read i t . 12. You r e g u l a r l y r e a d a s e c t i o n o f a magazine o r newspaper d e a l s with e d u c a t i o n a l matters.  that  9. You look forward to attending a workshop o r h e a r i n g a s p e a k e r on an e d u c a t i o n a l t o p i c o r p r o b l e m t h a t i n t e r e s t s you.  III.  VALUING  D e f i n i t i o n : A c o n t i n u u m o f v a l u e i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n * The continuum extends from a c c e p t i n g a phenomenon as b e i n g o f v a l u e , t h r o u g h p r e f e r r i n q t h e phenomenon o v e r o t h e r v a l u e s , t o open commitment t o and e x t e n s i o n o f t h e phenomenon a s a v a l u e ( K r a t h w o h l , p.13940) . Items: 8. You r e a d j o u r n a l s o r b o o k s a b o u t q e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l m a t t e r s or your own s u b j e c t m a t t e r f a i l y o f t e n (at l e a s t two o r t h r e e t i m e s a month) .  137 2. C o l l e a g u e s problems.  o f t e n come t o you  for information  on  educational  14* You believe that your own work, would be i m p r o v e d i f you c o u l d f i n d the r i g h t people to t a l k to or the r i g h t m a t e r i a l s t o read,; IV.  ORGANIZATION  D e f i n i t i o n : A continuum of value interaction. The continuum extends from c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g the value i n r e l a t i o n s h i p with o t h r important v a l u e s t o o r g a n i z i n g t h e v a l u e a s d o m i n a n t and n e a r l y i n s t i n c t i v e i n a system of v a l u e s (Krathwohl, p.154). Items: 3. I f you have t o make an important curriculum or decision, your f i r s t s t e p would be t o f i n d an e x p e r t some.good p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l ( a r t i c l e s , books) t o help that decision. 13. You would offer package o f i n f o r m a t i o n  to research a t o p i c and f o r your c o l l e a g u e s .  put  classroom person or you make together  6. I f you f o u n d an a r t i c l e or book t h a t you f e e l would h e l p of y o u r c o l l e a g u e s , you would recommend i t o r o f f e r a copy him o r h e r . V.  a one to  CHARACTERIZATION  Definition: Continuum o f v a l u e i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y characterization,* The continuum extends from a generalized p h i l o s o p h y o r s e t of b e l i e f s t h a t c o n s i s t e n t l y d i c t a t e a c t i o n t o a complex of deeply held personal b e l i e f s and a c t i o n s t h a t c l e a r l y and c e n t r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e the individual (Krathwohl, p. 165) . Items: 11.  You  subscribe  t o two  o r more p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s .  15. Your colleagues often send e d u c a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o you; 7. You have w r i t t e n matters.  a r t i c l e s or  people  given  who  are  workshops on  looking  for  educational  APPENDIX D  Letter  To Responent  APPENDIX E  Letter  To D i s t r i c t  Superintendents  APPENDIX F  Postcard  Remind  APPENDIX G  C o r r e l a t i o n s Between User C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  and and  Among Sources  A p p e n d i x G. 1 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s * Among User  Characteristics  Characteristies  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  100  18 100  20 12 100  21 14 21 100  15 06 26 41 100  -26 -04 -33 -41 -36 100  08 -02 19 00 02 -01 100  08 03 -02 -09 -17 17 00 100  Experience Isolation Education Dissemin* Attitude Pos,Con.1 Pos.Con*2 Pos.Con,*3  * rounded  t o two  Correlations*  significant figures,  A p p e n d i x G.2 Between S o u r c e s and User  Sources 1 1.Workshops 2. C o n v e r s a t i o n s 3iFiles, office 4.Abstracts 5.Sch,Libr. 6.Ed.Journals 7.Experts 8.Textbooks 9,*Meetings 10.Puh.Libr. 11 *Computers 12*Research 13.Curr.Mat.  decimals  00 -04 -08 03 -09 15 01 -03 -06 -01 04 13 -03  Characteristics 4 3 2 09 02 -04 05 07 09 02 02 04 09 08 06 04  00 03 03 06 -14 17 09 -04 11 09 19 16 -10  08 19 06 15 02 27 19 -05 17 07 19 25 00  of 5 20 15 14 24 05 48 37 05 22 19 20 37 06  omitted.  Characteristics** Respondents 7 6 -13 -03 -02 -01 16 -24 -20 19 -21 -03 -20 -25 05  -09 -09 05 04 -21 -03 -04 07 -12 -06 05 -01 -21  8 -03 -09 -05 -08 -01 -10 -09 -02 -06 -07 -06 -07 11  * r o u n d e d t o two s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e s , d e c i m a l s omitted;, ** u s e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e f i n e d i n p r e v i o u s t a b l e *  146  Appendix  G.3  Intercorrelations* Sources  1  3  4  02 05 I. Workshops 100 08 11 21 2*Convers. 100 100 29 3.Office 100 4.Abstracts 5,. S c . L i b r a r y 6. E d . J o u r n a l s 7. E x p e r t s 8. Books 9. M e e t i n g s 10. P u b . l i b r a r y II. Computers 12;Research 13.Curr.materials * rounded  Among  5  6  7  07 16 17 31 100  14 08 13 27 14 100  27 14 05 18 00 23 100  t o two s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e s ,  Sources 8  9  06 48 13 13 00 31 02 20 08 26 22 09 04 25 100 ^07 100  decimals  10  11  12  13  01 03 11 28 25 19 20 16 12 100  69 02 03 24 07 21 24 02 13 30 100  13 08 08 31 09 37 31 06 21 32 45 100  11 15 13 11 26 11 02 23 12 11 05 45 100  omitted;  147  APPENDIX H  M u l t i p l e Begression Summary Tables f o r A l l Sources  148  T a b l e H. 1 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 1: Workshops, C o u r s e s and S e m i n a r s Variable  E.2  Experience Education Position C. 1 C.2 C.3 Isolation Dissemination Attitude  .0000 . 0000 .0185 .0249 . 0249 .0342 . 0350 . 0650  Inc.  R.  2  F-ratio  .0000 .0000 .0185 ,0063 .0000 .0092 .0008 .0299  Table  Sig* L e v e l  19.0771 6.5711  .01 *01 .05  9.6469  .01  32.2042  .01  H. 2  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 2: C o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h C o l l e a g u e s Variable  R.  Experience Education Position C.2 C.1 C.3 Dissemination Isolation Attitude  ,0018 .0025  ,0018 .0007  .0095 .0112 .0112 .0548 .0549 .0661  .0069 .0018 .0 000 .0436 .0001 ,0112  2  I n c . R.  2  F-ratio  Sig*Level  7.0805  ,01 ;01  46.4790  .01  12,0885  .01  149  Table  H. 3  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 3: Notes and F i l e s i n my O f f i c e Inc.  R.  Variable  R.2  Experience Education Position C.2 C.3 C. 1 Dissemination Isolation Attitude  . 0063 .0083  ,0063 .0020  .0106 .0127 .0132 .0181 .0190 .0351  .0023 .0021 .0005 .0049 .0009 ,0161  Table  2  F-ratio  Sig.Level  6.4301  .05  5.0090  ,i05  16.7607  .01  H. 4  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 4: A b s t r a c t s , I n d e x e s and B i b l i o g r a p h i e s Variable  R.2  Experience Education Position C. 1 C.3 C. 2 Dissemination Isolation Attitude  . 0008 . 0041 .0126 . 0164 .0176 . 0290 .0340 .0659  Inc*  R.2  F-ratio  .0008 .0034 .0085 .0038 .0012 .0115 .0014 .0354  Sig.Level  8.6841 3.8761  .01 .01 .05  11.9003  ,01  38.1298  ,01  150  Table  H. 5  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary S o u r c e 5: S c h o o l o r D i s t r i c t Inc.  Table f o r Libraries  F-ratio  Sig;Level  Variable  R.2  Experience Education Position C.2 C. 1 C.3 Dissemination Isolation attitude  . 0072 .0226  .0072 .0153  7. 3770 15. 8821  .01 01 .01  . 0584 .0748 .0763 . 0873 .o928 .1024  .0358 .0165 .0015 .0110 .0054 .0096  38, 4288 17, 9973  Loi  12. 1301 6. 0430 10. 7709  :01 ,05 ,01  Table  R.2  A  .01  H. 6  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 6: E d u c a t i o n a l J o u r n a l s Inc.  F-ratio  Sig* Level  Variable  R.  Experience Education Position C. 1 C.3 C*2 Dissemination Isolation attitude  . 0219 .0424  .0219 .0205  22. 6289 21. 6830  .0731 . 0799 . 0832 . 1095 . 1107 .2497  .0307 .0068 .0033 .0263 .0012 .1390  33. 5219 7. 5071 3. 6190 29. 7831  .01 Oil .01 .01 .01 .05 .01  186. 3006  ,01  2  R.2  .4  151  Table  H.  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 7 E x p e r t s o u t s i d e my S c h o o l Inc.  Variable Experience Education Position C. 1 C.3 C.2 Dissemination Isolation Attitude  R.  0002 0082  0002 ,0080  0437 0470 0491 0637 0637 1500  ,0355 .0033 .0021 ,0146 ,0000 .0863  Table  F-ratio  2  Sig;Level  37.5715 3.4756  .01 .01 .05  15.6970  .01  102.1092  . 01  H. 8  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 8: Books and T e x t b o o k s Variable Experience Education Position C. 1 C.2  C.3 Dissemination Isolation Attitude  R.2  Inc.  0011 0021  .0011 .0011  0368 0415 0444 0450 ,0455 ,0600  .0346 .0047 .0029 .0006 .0005 .0145  fi.  2  F-fatio  Sig;level  36.3445 4.9873  .01 .01 ,105  15.5375  .01  152  Table  H. 9  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 9: C o n v e n t i o n s , M e e t i n g s Sig^Level  Variable  E. 2  Experience Education Position C. 1 C. 2 Ci.3 Dissemination Isolation Attitude  . 0036 .0132  .0036 . 0096  3.6729 9.8622  .0439 .0453 .0460 .0529 .0532 .0705  .0306 .0014 .0007 .0070 .0003 .0173  32.3849  .05 .01 .01 .01  7.4044  .01  18.7273  .01  Inc.  Table  R.2  H.  F-ratio  10  M u l t i p l e E e g r e s s i o h Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 10: P u b l i c o r U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s Variable  E.2  Experience Education Position C. 2 C.3 C. 1 Isolation Dissemination Attitude  . 0001 . 0078  .0001 .0077  .0133 .0133 .0133 . 0201 . 0219 .0545  .0055 .0000 .0000 .0068 :0018 .0321  I n c . fi.  2  F-ratio  Sig.Level  7.8438  .01  7.0272  .01  34.6531  .01  153  Table  H. 11  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 1 1 : Computer R e t r i e v a l -  R. 2  Variable  R.2  Experience Education Position C. 1 C. 2 C.3 Dissemination Isolation Attitude  .0013 . 0349  .0013 .0336  .0572 .0580 .0587 . 0698 .0734 . 0819  .0223 .0008 .0007 .0111 .0036 .0085  Inc.  Table  F-ratio 35.2272  Sig  23.8814  iOi .01 .01  12 . 0632 3.8735 9.3555  *01 .05 .01  ;  H. 12  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 12: R e s e a r c h R e p o r t s , Dissertations Sig.Level  Variable  R.2  Experience Education Position C. 1 C.3 C.2 Dissemination Isolation Attitude  .0180 . 0374  .0180 .0195  18.5205 20.4690  .0719 . 0734 .0748 .0965 .0863 . 1598  ,.0345 .0015 .0014 .0217 .0003 .0629  37.5611  .01 .01 .01 .01  24:2221  .01  75.3556  .01  Inc.  R.2  F-ratio  154  Table  H.  13  M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o u r c e 13: C u r r i c u l u m M a t e r i a l s Variable  S.2  Experience Education Position C.2 C.3 C. 1 Isolation Dissemination Attitude  . 0008 .0095  .0008 .0087  . 0464 .0572 .0572 .0589 .0601 . 0698  .0369 .0108 .0000 .0017 .0011 .0096  Inc.  R.  2  F-ratio  Sig.Level  39.1605 11.5402  i01 .01 i01 .01  10.3872  .01  8.8958  155 APPENDIX I  Form J Ministry Province  Of  Education  Of B r i t i s h  Columbia  156  O CA OD RE R ECT O IAN N ISE T ROUGH IT YOUR RESPONSE1N I THE U READ N ISTRUCTO INS ON BACK. DO,NOT PRN ITPN IRSH D RSEASD .RAW FORACORRECTO ILN ,D RH AW A THE ERROR AND PRN HEAVY  E*E  T  Ht»v  SCHOOL NAME  S  School  11  PAftT i*H TtAOtflS ONL* , ol t i | i ntf rh*f you  • i ON ONIY fcopr ol  T  t  :  u  U  31  rmplovvd  32  Drttfici mda •Vto-t H»an  ! ,  On* kftwj: o"W  I N • B.C. I • In prvttnt lehoo* dtttrici  3 4  • In •nettw actaol dmnct In a B C iw-ouW* ichooOut*** • C (C**c* and loao-v * •rut* I  13  • ;ONE ONLY  33  Q4 $5 Ou'»'Q» 9 C public tcWool Wt'fm ' Q 3 j c " p n i B c -re*CN»c ciBTif'C*Tf SOT S*L*"> r i ' t o : U  I °5 I Protw.O«* . 06 i Standard  . In B C • Qutude I C lehae*. «nd iwc'N tutew m *2i  Taaeflrnfl I rcpnca 11  . Leuer o< Per m ,u^n  IK ^34  ii--.STP_C''ONS a-- sack  jiidti you te*cn  :  ,  -» 02 03 0 4 ' t f t ' 0 6  35  1  —'  : !  1  '  0  '  7  i T^O-?'  06 09 :Q "  "  i  -g Spec « E d " ' " ' " " 0  • INSTRUCTIONS 0" t  iS  i 02 03 04 OS 0 6 , Q T ' Q 8 :  00  01  L b-j-v Sut»-v.l"i« oMiudv pa"Od* COL."if Aa-".".it>ltiO" and lupafyMO* 0< injlfuctujn T,m» 0' dui.as.abo** nnctudini  I I  0 9 ^ 0 1 11 ' 12 j?0 | 2 " ^  KI 71 Indole rr» «.«»—. « C-uJ« le.  '"O'e*" "* P*'" ** °* v ' «hooi *****  3143  Mj 1  41  41  171  100' d^Mt (NOT In i  :i  1 .nd>catf umirt**iiv H  441 45  37;  it:  d«« codn from L.« 3 on back  - plMHl 1  72  171  41  «••) •*<* I-  O ih.l CtMl  PiponiibtlitiM •! BOTH  1  «7  cr-it  It  U  21  an  Crrpd.i .»«.  CT»WT  (Mt itttndid »>cofxto»y of htfh itfvoel  ^ tdt I IO VII Cl**i yf tonructront on b*ct' NOT!j -,o' Th. raaatiad Mr. compter* tc K,o<J^»»rl»n d » W t « '«•«* * • * •  "^i  1^1 it you  L  01 02  M ^ V t S t T c L A K E S BE.NG TAUGHT AT THE PRESENT T,ME S » m f T R O C T . O * . -  73  74:  75  71  77  71  7«  «0  12  13 Ui.n« i * « 1 and 2 o« l»-ct. oi ih-i ^ " ' " • " l i ^ ' ^ T J ^ " i c ' , 0 « US O. '..Mil ,n*ni(A you hava co«P*tl8 J Ou N i V f R S i T v D»U 0  CratM W— .„  iu»tmi  4(  L :—_  a __J_L-L 53 L !S, ;  I L  L _  ill  __L  S  si  (SM  raa E N G U S H WATHI  •7__J L_ .1 _ . ! ' , . ... « 9 _ — L C!.  : I ;  1  I  >i__LL_L  % at you< whool wwk  0<M* CotS* , 00 Krpn 00 Vltl . 08 ix  -1 io x  1  I  MvMrti E«uc  II XI i — 12 XU \ 70 SOTO* 90 Muio ,  9  U  un\vJ*T»v e w m i l f * 'OO 2O0 and 30Oi amar coo. 31102 column and WW "3" >» -lumbar o< cau'Kicompiaiad co^r  H an Enftal. I cia« w « tawftti I f t n o * out o< a  1 : ! Hemi Economic*  r  C0m<,>..« .« «ich .1 lull co '--3 ».«.«-• °" nou'H I' V«"' wtxaci •••• -« "»t on a«ha> hit !)'••»• P""' *o  now of b  *rotr*mm*t *o< rVarincuta> Otc nt  13O0C 13M» 10»O0  |/40 , 100 • 1§\ OQMMOII CONVI«S<tONI 1 « - 17% 1/T • 14%  m  Co*  17  n  1 » " 11% It v»u W W * • eiaw 100% •rt your inmra «r,M .« 100 •yon rtv»««*t  I oanrfy (fiat rha .rTlWwjtion p-Mf  » oomd*««  Sfnatur* pt Taacnar  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078358/manifest

Comment

Related Items